Serious trouble for the GOP

#27
#27
joevol320 said:
?Conservatives? Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

look at this poll.

i guess conservative doesn't equal to republican. the problem is that republican are afraid to stick with conservatism.
Click to expand...


The other problem is that neo-conservatism is what got us Bush and now even the conservatives are abandoning that ship to be consistent with their criticism of big government a la Obama. This is the divide between the Republicans who would govern focused on the economy and national defense, versus those who would govern with an eye towards gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, etc.
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
The other problem is that neo-conservatism is what got us Bush and now even the conservatives are abandoning that ship to be consistent with their criticism of big government a la Obama. This is the divide between the Republicans who would govern focused on the economy and national defense, versus those who would govern with an eye towards gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, etc.
Click to expand...

Please define neo-conservatism.

The way I see it neo-conservatism (what the left called Bush) must have been big government, reckless spending. Funny that this is much more in line with democratic principles. In reality the late term abortion issue along with the stem cell ban (which wasn't even really a ban) are the only real issues that Bush was steadfast on. He in many ways resembled a democrat save the Iraq war.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
The other problem is that neo-conservatism is what got us Bush and now even the conservatives are abandoning that ship to be consistent with their criticism of big government a la Obama. This is the divide between the Republicans who would govern focused on the economy and national defense, versus those who would govern with an eye towards gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, etc.
Click to expand...

you think there are two different conservative, economy vs social. incorrect..

funny, you don't talk about the dems who govern for higher taxes vs dems who govern with an eye for unrestricted abortion, gay marriage, government run schools.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
Please define neo-conservatism.

The way I see it neo-conservatism (what the left called Bush) must have been big government, reckless spending. Funny that this is much more in line with democratic principles. In reality the late term abortion issue along with the stem cell ban (which wasn't even really a ban) are the only real issues that Bush was steadfast on. He in many ways resembled a democrat save the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

don't forget that Democrats involved the US in wars that killed nearly half a million US servicemen and women and killed untold millions of civilians.
 
#31
#31
KB5252 said:
Please define neo-conservatism.

The way I see it neo-conservatism (what the left called Bush) must have been big government, reckless spending. Funny that this is much more in line with democratic principles. In reality the late term abortion issue along with the stem cell ban (which wasn't even really a ban) are the only real issues that Bush was steadfast on. He in many ways resembled a democrat save the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

don't forget he created another health program, he was against gay marriage. he did give tax cuts but increase spending. so based on bush a neo-conservative is really a moderate democrat.
 
#32
#32
KB5252 said:
Please define neo-conservatism.

The way I see it neo-conservatism (what the left called Bush) must have been big government, reckless spending. Funny that this is much more in line with democratic principles. In reality the late term abortion issue along with the stem cell ban (which wasn't even really a ban) are the only real issues that Bush was steadfast on. He in many ways resembled a democrat save the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

It was as much what he did not do as what he did. Talk about a hands off kind of a guy!



joevol320 said:
you think there are two different conservative, economy vs social. incorrect..

funny, you don't talk about the dems who govern for higher taxes vs dems who govern with an eye for unrestricted abortion, gay marriage, government run schools.
Click to expand...

I absolutely think that there is a tension between the general conservative notion of smaller and less intrusive government versus the social issues where they want the government to take control of our lives.

See e.g. Terry Schiavo.

This is a huge problem for the Republicans. How can you be for smaller government that stays out of our lives, but want the national guard to interpose itself to keep a lady's feeding tube in?

We could go on and on with examples of the GOP unhesitatingly promoting use of the government as a tool to tell us how to live day-to-day, as long as it is in accord with their view of morality.
 
#33
#33
joevol320 said:
you think there are two different conservative, economy vs social. incorrect..
Click to expand...

I would bet there are millions of people who are fiscally conservative but couldn't care less about social conservatives.
 
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
I would bet there are millions of people who are fiscally conservative but couldn't care less about social conservatives.
Click to expand...

And you would be correct.

I also think that many social conservatives who scream "less gov't" are some of the biggest hypocrites in the world. You want less gov't? Fine, but don't expect a governing body to legislate morality for you.
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
It was as much what he did not do as what he did. Talk about a hands off kind of a guy!





I absolutely think that there is a tension between the general conservative notion of smaller and less intrusive government versus the social issues where they want the government to take control of our lives.

See e.g. Terry Schiavo.

This is a huge problem for the Republicans. How can you be for smaller government that stays out of our lives, but want the national guard to interpose itself to keep a lady's feeding tube in?

We could go on and on with examples of the GOP unhesitatingly promoting use of the government as a tool to tell us how to live day-to-day, as long as it is in accord with their view of morality.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are going and agree to a certain extent, although I think you are overstating any tensions. I would however point out that the terry Shciavo case is a poor example IMO. The reason the government stepped in was because family members who remained loyal to her best interests wanted her tube to remain in. Her husband, who had a new relationship, may not have been looking out for her (TS) best interests in this case. There is certainly a case to be made there. This is what the case boiled down to IMO.
 
#36
#36
emainvol said:
And you would be correct.

I also think that many social conservatives who scream "less gov't" are some of the biggest hypocrites in the world. You want less gov't? Fine, but don't expect a governing body to legislate morality for you.
Click to expand...


See mine two above you.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
It was as much what he did not do as what he did. Talk about a hands off kind of a guy!





I absolutely think that there is a tension between the general conservative notion of smaller and less intrusive government versus the social issues where they want the government to take control of our lives.

See e.g. Terry Schiavo.

This is a huge problem for the Republicans. How can you be for smaller government that stays out of our lives, but want the national guard to interpose itself to keep a lady's feeding tube in?

We could go on and on with examples of the GOP unhesitatingly promoting use of the government as a tool to tell us how to live day-to-day, as long as it is in accord with their view of morality.
Click to expand...

TinFoilHatArea.jpg
 
#38
#38
KB5252 said:
I understand where you are going and agree to a certain extent, although I think you are overstating any tensions. I would however point out that the terry Shciavo case is a poor example IMO. The reason the government stepped in was because family members who remained loyal to her best interests wanted her tube to remain in. Her husband, who had a new relationship, may not have been looking out for her (TS) best interests in this case. There is certainly a case to be made there. This is what the case boiled down to IMO.
Click to expand...


It had been looked at by numerous Florida courts who decided it did not need to be meddled into, and yet at the insistence of the religious right in came the federal government, trying to impose its governmental will on a small community and the doctors at a particular facility. Regardless of your personal views of how it should have been handled by the family, the point is that it was reaching (like from here to to the sun) to come up with a federal interest there. But, if it suited their cause, the alleged conservatives who tout minimalist government were more than happy to make an exception for this case.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
We could go on and on with examples of the GOP unhesitatingly promoting use of the government as a tool to tell us how to live day-to-day, as long as it is in accord with their view of morality.
Click to expand...

Because the left NEVER uses the power of government telling people how to live day-to-day? I guess you've missed where the Left is repeatedly found to demand the courts force overturning elections, propositions, amendments, etc.

And foreign policy...Obama sure was down on Bush about his 'forcing' a US policy on other nations but yet amazingly Obama is doing the same. Pre-election Obama said we would not force our will on other nations but post-election Obama has managed to jack our allies up against the wall and tell them it's his way or the highway.

The left is not without their issues right now. Left of center businessmen are fleeing the country after seeing their wallets shrink - thus a loss of jobs and guarantee the number of new jobs diminishes. The feminists are curling up over the left males calling right females every foul name in the book. Gay rights groups have displayed quite a level of intolerance in the name of preaching tolerance. The list goes on and on. It's great for you to pile on the right but the house of cards you live in is already falling apart.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
It was as much what he did not do as what he did. Talk about a hands off kind of a guy!





I absolutely think that there is a tension between the general conservative notion of smaller and less intrusive government versus the social issues where they want the government to take control of our lives.

See e.g. Terry Schiavo.

This is a huge problem for the Republicans. How can you be for smaller government that stays out of our lives, but want the national guard to interpose itself to keep a lady's feeding tube in?

We could go on and on with examples of the GOP unhesitatingly promoting use of the government as a tool to tell us how to live day-to-day, as long as it is in accord with their view of morality.
Click to expand...

please, give me some more as you see it.
 
#41
#41
emainvol said:
And you would be correct.

I also think that many social conservatives who scream "less gov't" are some of the biggest hypocrites in the world. You want less gov't? Fine, but don't expect a governing body to legislate morality for you.
Click to expand...

Exactly, screw government, why in the world do we give up the right to define what marriage is and leave it up to the government.

Government is failure........ screw them!

Libertarian all the way baby!
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
It had been looked at by numerous Florida courts who decided it did not need to be meddled into, and yet at the insistence of the religious right in came the federal government, trying to impose its governmental will on a small community and the doctors at a particular facility. Regardless of your personal views of how it should have been handled by the family, the point is that it was reaching (like from here to to the sun) to come up with a federal interest there. But, if it suited their cause, the alleged conservatives who tout minimalist government were more than happy to make an exception for this case.
Click to expand...

I agree that some turned the case into a morality issue, I believe her family probably took whatever help they could come up with. I was torn on this case. I would not want to burden my family by being in that condition. However there were some allegations that he may have been responsible for her being in this condition (nothing that can be proven though). I also don't think it appropriate that he make this decision for her, it reeks of conflict of interest IMO. If it had been me I would have turned my P. of A. over to her parents. The fact that he didn't seemed kind of odd to me.
 
#43
#43
KB5252 said:
I agree that some turned the case into a morality issue, I believe her family probably took whatever help they could come up with. I was torn on this case. I would not want to burden my family by being in that condition. However there were some allegations that he may have been responsible for her being in this condition (nothing that can be proven though). I also don't think it appropriate that he make this decision for her, it reeks of conflict of interest IMO. If it had been me I would have turned my P. of A. over to her parents. The fact that he didn't seemed kind of odd to me.
Click to expand...


I've only had one foray into Florida law on who speaks for an Estate when there is a decision to be made by someone who can't make it, and that taught me that stability and dependability in hard and fast rules for it are our friend.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
I've only had one foray into Florida law on who speaks for an Estate when there is a decision to be made by someone who can't make it, and that taught me that stability and dependability in hard and fast rules for it are our friend.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that one bit. However when there is an obvious conflict of interest, as was present in this case it would seem to me that this guy would have turned P of A over to her parents, especially since there were allegations made against him regarding her and he was in another relationship and had no contact with this woman for some time. I just found that kind of odd on his part. I would have wanted nothing to do with that decision at that point if for no other reason than how it would have looked to others (serving his self interest).
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
But when the most powerful voices of the party are RL and Hannity and Coulter and Beck, its hard to drown them out, or really even to just counterbalance them with someone more even-keeled.
Click to expand...
Right out of the Democratic playbook . . . Guys like Limbaugh are no more or less powerful now than they were 8 years ago when the GOP controlled everything.
 
#48
#48
As a younger, professional, black guy (if it matters), the GOP just doesn't speak for me, and more importantly, they seem to not even speak TO me.

If they were all business about national defense and fiscal responsibility (and practiced what they preached).....I would be more apt to potentially vote for them.

But when they wax on about stem cells, abortion, and affirmative action (a necessary evil when you listen to them speak in CODE long enough)...they flat lose me.

A guy like me basically has the choice to vote D or not vote at all.
 
#49
#49
Anyone, who can be on the air daily during Bush's administration, and not be critical of his leadership has little credibility. He might as well be the chairman for the Republican.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top