Why I'm not a Republican ...

Yes, I know I'm a libertarian because I've lived a life of privledge.
Excuse me while I order my butler to fetch for me, my Royal Septer!

I mean damn I can't explain it anymore.
Just make sure Med that after Obama does everything that Bush did.
He attacks Pakistan, stays in Iraq, adds another $5-10 trillion to the debt.
Just make sure you vote democrat, Just ignore anyone with an R next to his name.
Even if that person says he will end the war day one.
Even if he says we will cut the military budget $4-5 hundred billion.
Even if he says he will end the drug war ASAP.
Even if he says he will veto any budget that is not balaced.
Even if that Person has a 30 year track record of standing on his principles.
Just vote for Obama because hes for "Social Justice" whatever the fuck that is.
 
Mcgician said:
Since you like to champion Obama administration for the amazing work they've done so far though, and seem to base your logic on opinion ratings, know this. FACT. No other president in history has seen a further decline in popularity since inauguration day in such a short time as Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

First , you obviously have not read my posts because I have time and again I do not agree with how far how fast Obama has taken his agenda and that I think hes too fart left. Please make sure you read someones posts before you make some half-assed assumption of what someone likes/dislikes. Second I'm going to need a reference to your statement that his spproval ratings have dropped the fastest. In fact they have heald fairly steady and even fox news has agreed with this as soon as three days ago (haven't been able to take my usual drive and listen to the XM..). So untill you start providing some references im going to have to call that total bullshit. Infact here is a link that discusses his approval rating, you might want to read it. It says that, well here you readi t, lol...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090428/pl_bloomberg/aye7j8cfp2ee

April 28 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama has an approval rating of 68 percent, a higher figure than his predecessor had at his 100-day mark in office, a poll found.


Sorry, but that's the truth. Deal with it. Keep on with your phrases like "Tin Foil Hat Mafia", and fingerpointing at the past at Bush if you want, but sooner or later, the majority of Americans WILL wake up to the fact that they've been duped, and that the promises of HOPE and CHANGE will amount to nothing more than a sizably reduced standard of living, and that the freedoms generations before them had fought so hard for are dangerously teetering on the brink of extinction.
Click to expand...

Yawn.. really? One day everyone will see it man!!! Its all a conspiracy to fuck up everyone and make us mindless drones... oh pluease..

Your understanding of the how the appropriating of funds is greatly mistaken. The President has NO PART in the the Appropriations Committee. He can only hope to sway the Senators in power of that particular committee to do the things he wishes.
Click to expand...

And veto?

They've always been empty threats, until TARP money and bailout money came along. With a nearly filibuster-proof Senate, and a majority in the House, the type of threats the Obama administration is making to banks that try to refuse TARP money are hardly insignificant, run of the mill, requests. Add to that the fact the Obama administration's treasury department and financial advisors are the exact same people that drove the financial industry into the ground in the first place, and you begin to put 2 and 2 together. Oh, I must be a conspiracy theorist having said that. Pfftt....
Click to expand...


How exactly did the financial advisors on the white house staff drive the financial industry into the ground?

The people that drove the industry into the ground were the greedy CEO's that oked unsound lending practices suck as mortgages that homeowners could not afford, as well as numerious other things that they did that fucked the financial market, caused the housing crisis, etc. The white house staff were the ones that fucked up things with the bail out but where in the hell do you get that they caused these unsound lending practices and other shiz?? They are not the lending policy makers for the banks. they are not the ones that got fat bonuses and made bad loans and bad mortage packages (no down arms..) Once again you show that you don't really know what the hell your talking about..
 
Mcgician said:
Seriously bro, this is OLD news.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

http://www.patriotroom.com/article/obama-approval-rating-cut-in-half-since-inauguration

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...proval-rating-plunges-shocking-15-points.html

http://people-press.org/report/498/obama-approval-slips

As for the financial collapse, that's another thread. If you care to do enough research though, you'll find the statements I made are correct.
Click to expand...

Looks like polls not taken from rasmussen differ.. Look at the link I provided.. His approval rating is what 59 % a slip of 5%. ??? Are you serious? read my link!!!

Your statements in reguards to the financial crisis , seriously in one paragraph in your own words tell me how the white house staff contributed to bad lending practices?
 
I'm not a Republican because I do not believe in initiating aggression, which is the same reason I'm not a Democrat.

Defending a political party blindly while denigrating another is what keeps the two party system alive and continues the facade of choice....plus it's good for television ratings. Both parties seem to support the premise that government is a tool to use to force their ideas on others, both want to wield the power of government to feather their own nests and their backers. For example, economic stimulus packages grow government dependence, what if instead of increasing debt "they" had simply increased the amount of money people are permitted to keep in their pay checks by nixing the income tax, thus stimulating the economy that way? Did either party seriously consider that? One thing that remains steady is government and debt continue to grow, liberty continues to shrink regardless of which "choice" is foisted on us every 4 years.

I would vote for any candidate that doesn't want to run my life regardless of their affiliation. However, with the lone exception of Ron Paul I cannot recall any candidate that espouses that simple credo..."I don't want to run your life" .
Kuchinich almost got it and talked a good game, but thought your wallet belonged to the government. Hillary and Romney were supposed to represent different political parties...one only need examine forced health care to understand how much alike they were. Both viewed people as subjects to be ordered to participate in programs.

I believe I am responsible for my life, not you, not the government, not anybody, me. I believe you are responsible for your life. If you choose to help me or I choose to help you, that is a very good thing. The collective, socialism etc. believes people must be forced to "do good" . This belief that good can be derived from the use of force is a logical flaw that is conveniently forgotten in the heat of "knowing what's best for you". Nothing (except maybe the government) prevents people from organizing and doing good...logically isn't good derived from good (free will) better than "good" derived from force?
 
Rob Roy said:
I'm not a Republican because I do not believe in initiating aggression, which is the same reason I'm not a Democrat.

Defending a political party blindly while denigrating another is what keeps the two party system alive and continues the facade of choice....plus it's good for television ratings. Both parties seem to support the premise that government is a tool to use to force their ideas on others, both want to wield the power of government to feather their own nests and their backers. For example, economic stimulus packages grow government dependence, what if instead of increasing debt "they" had simply increased the amount of money people are permitted to keep in their pay checks by nixing the income tax, thus stimulating the economy that way? Did either party seriously consider that? One thing that remains steady is government and debt continue to grow, liberty continues to shrink regardless of which "choice" is foisted on us every 4 years.

I would vote for any candidate that doesn't want to run my life regardless of their affiliation. However, with the lone exception of Ron Paul I cannot recall any candidate that espouses that simple credo..."I don't want to run your life" .
Kuchinich almost got it and talked a good game, but thought your wallet belonged to the government. Hillary and Romney were supposed to represent different political parties...one only need examine forced health care to understand how much alike they were. Both viewed people as subjects to be ordered to participate in programs.

I believe I am responsible for my life, not you, not the government, not anybody, me. I believe you are responsible for your life. If you choose to help me or I choose to help you, that is a very good thing. The collective, socialism etc. believes people must be forced to "do good" . This belief that good can be derived from the use of force is a logical flaw that is conveniently forgotten in the heat of "knowing what's best for you". Nothing (except maybe the government) prevents people from organizing and doing good...logically isn't good derived from good (free will) better than "good" derived from force?
Click to expand...


Nice post bro!! +rep
 
olosto said:
Looks like polls not taken from rasmussen differ.. Look at the link I provided.. His approval rating is what 59 % a slip of 5%. ??? Are you serious? read my link!!!

Your statements in reguards to the financial crisis , seriously in one paragraph in your own words tell me how the white house staff contributed to bad lending practices?
Click to expand...
You need to read the links again. His approval on inauguration day was at 83%. It's now 58%. That's a 25 point slip. Like I said before, I could care less what polls or approval ratings say one way or the other, because only sheep need the comfort of herd mentality. This argument is pointless. As for derailing Vi's thread anymore, I'm trying hard not to do that, but since you insist, here's a link from Bill Moyers' show (that should make the libs happy) with an MIT professor of economics that talks about the connections.

http://www.truthout.org/021609J


"Bill Moyers: Geithner has hired as his chief-of-staff, the lobbyist from Goldman Sachs. The new deputy secretary of state was, until last year, a CEO of Citigroup. Another CFO from Citigroup is now assistant to the president, and deputy national security advisor for International Economic Affairs. And one of his deputies also came from Citigroup. One new member of the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board comes from UBS, which is being investigated for helping rich clients evade taxes.
You're probably too young to remember that old song, "Sounds like the Mack the Knife is back in town." I mean, is that what you're talking about with this web of relationships?
Simon Johnson: Absolutely. I don't think you have enough time on your show to go through the full list of people and all the positions they've taken. I'm sure these are good people. Don't get me wrong. These are find upstanding citizens who have a certain perspective, and a certain kind of interest, and they see the world a certain way.
And it's exactly a web of interest, I think, is what you said. And that's exactly the right way to think about it. That web of interest is not my interest, or your interest, or the interest of the taxpayer. It's the interest, first and foremost, of the financial industry in this country."
 
But they did not cause the mess while in office, they were brought into office after the shit had hit the fan. I.E. they were not staffers when this shit when south.


Rob Roy - Good post. I don't like being labeled...

Also you are so wrong about the approval ratings. Here is anoth link from GALLUP, you know the people that conduct the studies, this is a daily run of his approval rating tops at 69 and is currently 64. You need to get your facts straight and not listen to the biased media..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-obama-Job-Approval.aspx

So once again the things you have spouted off about are found to be untruthful after citations are brought..
 
budsmoker87 said:
medicineman, is it that HARD for u to let go of the false paradigm?


Why is it so very necessary for human beings to categorize others? It's psychologically imbedded in us to "pick sides", or "join a side" and defend it.

Guess it just has to do with the dominant social paradigm...a little social darwinism, if you will.

It's almost like a mob mentality...rationality flies out the window when people pick sides and can't defend themselves when questioned "why." So they categorize, label, and worse of all- generalize- "repubs are known for this, democrats are known for that."

just utter ridiculousness. Keep defending "your side, your team" and corruption will continue.

Said it once and I'll say it again- the most inhumane leaders in history realize that, by using their psychology against people, you can get people to fight amongst each other...isn't that the very reason why politics itself is such a touchy, controversial subject?

So keep arguing this irrelevant nonsense, it's all part of the plan
Click to expand...
The title of the thread was why I'm not a republican, I think I described partially why. I actually was a conservative at one point, voted for Nixon the first time. About that time period was when the awakening happened, I got divorced from my first wife and found myself in the real world of survival. I started to become aware of what the party in power was trying to accomplish. I fast figured out that the republicans were for the corporations, and the democrats leaned more towards the workers. They were both for the corporations, but the democrats were less so. So, it became the party of least destruction of my way of life as a worker bee, the democratic party. I realize there is no perfect party for everyone, and I even liked some of Dr. Pauls agenda. His cutback on the military and foriegn aid had my total approval. It is certain that neither party has the peoples comfort in mind. The government is ruled by the oligarchs. It is a plutochracy. No matter which party is in power, the same people control the country.
 
medicineman said:
The title of the thread was why I'm not a republican, I think I described partially why. I actually was a conservative at one point, voted for Nixon the first time. About that time period was when the awakening happened, I got divorced from my first wife and found myself in the real world of survival. I started to become aware of what the party in power was trying to accomplish. I fast figured out that the republicans were for the corporations, and the democrats leaned more towards the workers. They were both for the corporations, but the democrats were less so. So, it became the party of least destruction of my way of life as a worker bee, the democratic party. I realize there is no perfect party for everyone, and I even liked some of Dr. Pauls agenda. His cutback on the military and foriegn aid had my total approval. It is certain that neither party has the peoples comfort in mind. The government is ruled by the oligarchs. It is a plutochracy. No matter which party is in power, the same people control the country.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately Med there is a difference between being against the corporations and for the workers. The Democrats are against the corporations, (well some of them at any rate) but they are not for the workers. If they were for the workers they would lower taxes to benefit those that are working, not raise them to benefit government employees and those on the dole.

As for Republicans being for the corporations, that can only be limited as stating that they are for some corporations.

But that's not strictly true either. For the most part Republicans (Party Elite) do not represent the ideals of the other Republicans (Members).

Or more succinctly, 1% of Republicans give the other 99% a bad name.

(On the other hand 99% of Democrats give the other 1% a bad name.)
 
Personally, I think if Steele remains as the RNC chairman we will be seeing a new Republican party ... one that is way more libertarian than its ever been before. There has always been SOME members of the Republican Party who lean to the libertarian side, and those are the Republicans that I usually vote for.

Think how nice its going to be to once again have a major party that talks about states rights, free markets, lower taxes, individual liberty and the blessings of capitalism again ... and does something about it.

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
Think how nice its going to be to once again have a major party that talks about states rights, free markets, lower taxes, individual liberty and the blessings of capitalism again ... and does something about it.

Vi
Click to expand...


Yea, because that worked sooo well the last 8 years.. :spew:
 
olosto said:
Yea, because that worked sooo well the last 8 years..
Click to expand...

And with that post, you've just demonstrated that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

You think Bush was for state's rights, free markets, lower taxes, individual liberty and the blessings of capitalism?

Bush was no libertarian, my friend, let alone a conservative. Bush increased the size and scope of the federal government and the spending was completely out of control. A good example of Bush's love of balanced budgets and a smaller, less intrusive federal government was the prescription drug program that he signed onto. And yes, it was a Republican majority in both houses that created the legislation that Bush signed on the issue.

Hopefully, the Republicans can contemplate their exodus to the outskirts of Washington politics, learn the lesson, then turn things around for both the party and the country.

The 2010 elections are right on the horizon. People are getting really pissed off with Obama's unconstitutional spending and his unconstitutional takeover of the private sector.

Watch for a HUGE backlash in 2010. You think Pelosi has problems? You ain't seen nuttin' yet. :lol:

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
And with that post, you've just demonstrated that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

You think Bush was for state's rights, free markets, lower taxes, individual liberty and the blessings of capitalism?

Bush was no libertarian, my friend, let alone a conservative. Bush increased the size and scope of the federal government and the spending was completely out of control. A good example of Bush's love of balanced budgets and a smaller, less intrusive federal government was the prescription drug program that he signed onto. And yes, it was a Republican majority in both houses that created the legislation that Bush signed on the issue.

Hopefully, the Republicans can contemplate their exodus to the outskirts of Washington politics, learn the lesson, then turn things around for both the party and the country.

The 2010 elections are right on the horizon. People are getting really pissed off with Obama's unconstitutional spending and his unconstitutional takeover of the private sector.

Watch for a HUGE backlash in 2010. You think Pelosi has problems? You ain't seen nuttin' yet. :lol:

Vi
Click to expand...
This shows how really naive you are. There are maybe 15% libertarians, at best, and you think you will rule in 2010? What a nerd.
"Our new research finds that 15 percent of American voters are libertarian rather than liberal or conservative. People generally say that a liberal favors government intervention in the economy and protection of civil liberties, while a conservative is opposed to both economic intervention and the expansion of civil liberties. Libertarians oppose government intrusion into both the economy and personal freedoms."
 
I think Bush like the politicial he is said he was for those things, yes.. And your saying that this "new guard" is going to have these princepals? Just tlike the old guard dud huh? Just another sucker buying the republican make over..
 
medicineman said:
This shows how really naive you are. There are maybe 15% libertarians, at best, and you think you will rule in 2010? What a nerd.
"Our new research finds that 15 percent of American voters are libertarian rather than liberal or conservative. People generally say that a liberal favors government intervention in the economy and protection of civil liberties, while a conservative is opposed to both economic intervention and the expansion of civil liberties. Libertarians oppose government intrusion into both the economy and personal freedoms."
Click to expand...

Hes delusional. Just like my post above believing that the republican party has changed one bit..
 
olosto said:
I think Bush like the politicial he is said he was for those things, yes.. And your saying that this "new guard" is going to have these princepals? Just tlike the old guard dud huh? Just another sucker buying the republican make over..
Click to expand...

I'm not buying into anything yet. I'm playing a wait and see game with the Republican Party. Just like Bush ... I didn't vote for him either time he ran. All I had to do was hear his "Compassionate Conservative" bull crap and that was it. After you've been at this political game as long as I have, you learn to listen to, and decypher the code words. Bush was a well intended person, but he was a well intended statist. That was enough for me.

What I'm saying is, there are plenty of Independents, Democrats AND Republicans who voted for Obama, and now that they are getting the whiff of hard-left socialism that Obama reeks of, there is going to be a backlash in 2010.

If the Republicans can, by some miracle, put their statist agenda aside, purge the party of fake conservatives like Spector, then ... and only then, will I consider voting for their candidates.

Hope that made sense to you ...

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
I'm not buying into anything yet. I'm playing a wait and see game with the Republican Party. Just like Bush ... I didn't vote for him either time he ran. All I had to do was hear his "Compassionate Conservative" bull crap and that was it. After you've been at this political game as long as I have, you learn to listen to, and decypher the code words. Bush was a well intended person, but he was a well intended statist. That was enough for me.

What I'm saying is, there are plenty of Independents, Democrats AND Republicans who voted for Obama, and now that they are getting the whiff of hard-left socialism that Obama reeks of, there is going to be a backlash in 2010.

If the Republicans can, by some miracle, put their statist agenda aside, purge the party of fake conservatives like Spector, then ... and only then, will I consider voting for their candidates.

Hope that made sense to you ...

Vi
Click to expand...

Where have you been man? Specter turned Dem....
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53R57820090428
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

doublejj
Senate Passes Social Security Fairness Act, Securing Economic Justice for Postal, Federal, and Public-Sector Retirees
Replies
2
Views
461
doublejj
doublejj
hanimmal
AP News: Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
Replies
7
Views
657
hanimmal
hanimmal
hanimmal
Kamala Harris Launches Her Campaign for President
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
12K
compassionateExotic
compassionateExotic
printer
Impeachment proceedings against Biden.
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
printer
printer
Fogdog
Fascism and the Republican Party
106 107 108
Replies
2K
Views
121K
laddyd
laddyd
Back
Top