10-07-2006, 01:05 AM | #61 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You misunderstand my argument with conservatives not understanding implications of constitutional protection. Many conservatives I have spoken with have wondered why Congress hasn't done more to regulate abortion. They don't understand that Congress must operate within the constitutional framework that the Supreme Court has established. They act as if Congress can simply overrule the Court. I can't even count how many people argued that Congress should just follow the lead of the state (I think it was Montana) that outlawed abortion completely. They don't understand it doesn't work like that. Quote:
This sounds like an acknowledgment that you are out of step with much of the party (the religious faction). Wasn't that your issue with me earlier? Quote:
|
||||||||
10-07-2006, 01:44 AM | #62 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
None of your questions nor analysis make sense. You ask why Reps are not in open rebellion. That assumes you know what Reps want. Now I don't claim to know entirely, as I'm not in touch with the "religious, single issue component" but more in touch with the economic component. You have yet to acknowledge it is perfectly pragmatic for the economic reasons to prefer those guys who, through the political machine, have slowed down as opposed to those of the Left who would destroy our economics. What is so unreasonable about that? You haven't even acknowledge the pragmatism of that. Furthermore, you've falied to recognize, Reps may becoming pragmatic, not dogmatic. Better a devil we know than one we don't. Conservative also means cautious. Most of us don't want "government solutions" which are actually problems waiting to burden us.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-07-2006, 04:07 AM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
The worst that would happen for a Republican would be the absence of any meaningful legislation for a two year period. In the interim, a clear message would have been sent to the party that the base won't tolerate the ineptitude that was portrayed in this Congress. The end result ideally for Republicans would be a new slate of candidates in 2008 whose values are more closely aligned with the base (as I mentioned happened to put Reagan in power and to put the '94 Congress into power). Your analysis assumes Democrats would do more harm to your interests than maintaining the current regime would. I fail to see how. The current regime could lose Republicans the White House and the Congress in 2008. Is it worth it to keep these guys in power now? |
|
10-07-2006, 06:01 AM | #64 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
This is where Democrats cannot understand the Republican psyche. All Democrats raise taxes, regardless. That certainty damns every Democrat for most Republicans. Republicans, in the old days, would almost rise up in open rebellion simply on that principle. Increasing and creating a progressive income tax is soo offensive, I can see pure hate for anybody willing to do that. There is no tax reduction friendly Democrat. For some reason, that is something you cannot understand. All other things are subservient to that fundamental principle. Abortion be damned. Borders be damned. All other things be damned. Or at least that's the originating point of view. Because government committed to low taxes musst also be committed to limited government. If you know your revenues will be limited, you will seek limited intervention in the lives of your citizens and to provide limited services. Democratic platform will always be an anathema to this, due to the promise of promising everything to everybody. Minimal government, reduced regulation except where essential. Strong military but not to the point of ridiculousness. Abortion is just an emotional issue. I would trade gay marriage, so long as no benefits for the partners would be transferred, for reduced taxes.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 10-07-2006 at 12:36 PM. |
|
10-07-2006, 01:53 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Again- explain how Democrats "will" harm your interests if they win this election? Wouldn't Bush veto any attempt to raise taxes? You refer to a Democratic president. That isn't the issue. We are in 2006, not 2008. |
|
10-07-2006, 04:33 PM | #66 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
A Democratic Congress would render it impossible to get any competent judicial appointment. A Democratic Congress might ultimately become a stalemate, but, actually, I don't trust Bush, as he acts too much like a Democrat, and with a Democratic Congress, it might be the final nail in our economic coffin, or in our liberties.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-25-2006, 05:09 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
A great article exactly along the lines of what I was discussing here (probably why I think the article is great!).
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes |
10-25-2006, 05:17 AM | #68 |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
Fortunately for the Dems they probably will not take either of the two houses, but they will gain seats in both. This election year stinks and I am hoping that the Dems will win in some key races, but that they do not quite get over the hump.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|