• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Welcome Liberals and Conservatives

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Re: Welcome......

Dargo said:
I don't exactly fit the greedy, non-companionate conservative stereotype. We have all been caught doing some rather "un-stereotypical" things for being conservatives.:eek:



I think maybe we may be far more typical than most would want to believe. The concept of conservative, at least to me, dictates that I do exactly the types of things that I have been doing, which is private sector generosity in place of public sector.

Consider what I am doing down in New Orleans. My guys are down there teaching. The crews I have scheduled to follow them are teaching crews. I think it goes with the concept of "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Now I admit that my generosity is limited to trying to help maybe a 100 to 150 people but it is what I can do. And I'm actively collecting money to fund a foundation that will be ongoing, got more donations today (minimum I'm asking for is $1000) to fund future relief efforts. We've set up the framework to allow for direct assistance of needy employees as well as to do future 'emergency fly in support' like we are doing right now in N.O.

All of it seems like it fits into the 'conservative' definition. What does not fit into the 'conservative' definition is the concept of federal support. And I still stand by the fact that the federal government should be the last recource and by law is not even allowed to go in to an area without an invitation from the state. Further, I think that is appropriate. But I also think it is reasonable to suggest that cities and states must mobilize first, and often in advance. Now in a disaster the scope of this one, and let's all be real honest that we have not seen one like this in 2 life times, the federal government must step up. But let's also realize that that while no other agency has the resources to do what the federal agencies can do, there are still laws that we have to uphold state's rights and soverenty. And those laws have hampered the federal effort, but they are still valid laws that must be considered.
 

OkeeDon

New member
Re: Welcome......

B_Skurka said:
The concept of conservative, at least to me, dictates that I do exactly the types of things that I have been doing, which is private sector generosity in place of public sector.

Ah, and now we get to the real nub of things (which is why Bob and I are friends). There are true conservatives and pseudo conservatives, just as there are true liberals and phoney liberals. Frankly, the pseudos and the phoneys deserve every epithet they throw at each other; in other words, for every Michael Moore there is an Sean Hannity; for every Rush Limbaugh there is an Al Franken; and for every Jesse Jackson there is an Ann Coulter.

In an ideal world, if every conservative was a true conservative, and followed the example of Bob and others here with their generosity, there would be no need for liberals like me. I recognize, however, that too many of the so-called conservatives are only in it for themselves, and begrudge any alms to their lessers, thus it is necessary for the government to step in and set things right.

The pseudo conservatives are in it for what they can grub for themselves. The irony is the phoney liberals are in it for the same reason, except they don't want to earn and keep it in the first place, thus are actually worse.

The true conservative does want to teach someone to fish. So does the true liberal. The pseudo conservative wants to keep the riff-raff off the water, and the phoney liberal wants someone else to do the fishing.

Interestingly, the pseudo conservative and the phoney liberal are both racist, both prejudiced, both blind, and both stupid.

In deciding whether to be a true conservative or a true liberal, however, one has to look at the subtleties. In the current environment, being a conservative means one aligns oneself with right-wing religious movements who want to force their way of thinking upon the entire populace through laws. This is actually counter-conservative if one believes in individual rights or even states' rights. It could be argued that those who want to change laws regarding abortion, prayers in school, and many other issues, via the Federal government, more correctly belong to the left-wing, where it's accepted that government will have an undue influence upon our lives. But, the right wing has pandered to them in order to win elections.

Then, there is economic success. The right has tried for at least 17 years through 3 presidencies (Reagan, Bush, Bush) to prove that their economic theories hold water. To call oneself a conservative means that one has to align themselves with that obvious failure (well, it's obvious to me, anyway, I'd like to see a realistic argument to the contrary).

Finally, there is the simple greed and selfishness that leads so-called conservatives to strip and rape environmental laws, reduce or eliminate penalties for environmental damage, raise corporate welfare, reward companies for sending jobs overseas, reduce taxes on the wealthy while eliminating necessary expenditures for health, food safety, infrastructure and the like, and so many other examples of simple greed there isn't room for them all.

The ultimate insult to true liberals (who should more properly be called Progressives or New Democrats), is the blanket tactic of the pseudo right to tar and feather any mention of the term "liberal" or to ostracize anyone who calles themself a progressive. There is no corresponding attack on the right from the left. In other words, progressives are just plain nicer people than pseudo conservatives.

Thus, I'm proud to call myself a true liberal. And, I think that Bob Skurka, Dargo, bczoom and a few others here are true conservatives. I respect that, because I don't think they fit my description of a pseudo conservative. Of course, I also feel sorry for them because they can't see the true light, but I try to keep my pity within bounds...;)

The irony is that the aforementioned conservatives are sometimes caught in liberal activities, and that I'm probably more of a fiscal conservative than anyone in the current spend-happy administration (they call liberals "tax and spend"; I call them "borrow and spend even more". The sad part is that the interest and the associated costs of borrowing probably cost us more than the taxes).

Harrumph. If all of the foregoing doesn't get me booted off, then this forum has hope...
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Re: Welcome......

Go Don Go!!!!!!
I think your gonna like it here! :) :)
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Don, one thing I need to correct in your writings. Those of us who really live and breathe the conservative belief don't really believe that G.W.Bush is a conservative, and we have just as many doubts about G.H.W.Bush. I think there are many of us who believe we are real conservatives who believe we voted for the lesser of two evils and that is how we got "W" Certainly you'd have to agree that neither the father nor the son are fiscal conservatives, nor could you argue that they are small governement conservatives, nor are either of them true states rights supporters.

Now given the choices, I'm happy with GWBush but I think I'd be far happier with a real conservative in office. Then again, I could say the same thing about many in Congress too!
 

OkeeDon

New member
You don't really need to correct it; I thought I said it, or at least implied it. I truly understand how a true conservative thinks (although I may not understand why). The previous Bush actually got my vote in his first election; I though he was a moderate, if not a centrist. It turned out that he was just clueless, which is why he served only one term.

It would have been readily apparent by the end of his first term that the current Bush is even more clueless, except that he was in the right place at the right time for the 9-11 tragedy, and folks were willing to cut him the benefit of the doubt. It should be apparent to everyone by now that he should never have had a second term. There is no way that he could now be seriously considered the lesser of two evils against Kerry. Kerry was/is a true fiscal conservative compared to GWB (as was Clinton in comparison), is a gun owner and hunter, has a Catholic's aversion to abortion (although he would support the law of the land), is a true sportsman, has a better military record by several orders of magnitude (despite what the pseudo-conservative Swift Boat veterans said), and has a real patrician background -- how could he have missed with the conservatives? Blame the lies of the pseudo conservatives.

Regardless, ya'll got what you wanted. Heh, heh.:p
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OkeeDon said:
I truly understand how a true conservative thinks (although I may not understand why).

Very few people understand me:rolleyes::rolleyes:


As for me getting what I wanted in the last election, nope that can't be said. I would also argue with much of your assessment of the nature of Mr Kerry. If he is a true sportsman, I'm one of the 3 stooges (last time I checked, Brian & Dargo are not going by the names Larry & Moe on any forums). I doubt his fiscal conservatism, his social policies, etc. His military record carries as much weight with me as did GW's or for that matter Bill Clinton's! Now G.H.W. had a real military record, but I didn't much think of most of his term.

I'd take Dan Quayle over any of them any day. Then again, I'm from Indiana.
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
B_Skurka said:
...Those of us who really live and breathe the conservative belief don't really believe that G.W.Bush is a conservative, and we have just as many doubts about G.H.W.Bush.....I think I'd be far happier with a real conservative in office.

I think those of us who wear the self appointed "liberal" label (hopefully, I will meet your criteria of a real liberal, Don) place G.W.Bush closer to a Fundamentalist than a Conservative, and even we would be happier with a true conservative in office.

Dave
 

OkeeDon

New member
"If he is a true sportsman, I'm one of the 3 stooges..." Seen him playing hockey?

"I doubt his fiscal conservatism, his social policies, etc." I said he was more fiscally conservative than GW; that should be a given; almost anyone is. Kerry promised to at least continue the policies of Clinton, who actually reduced the size of government. You can doubt whatever you like, but he acknowledged that he had a personal tendency to reject abortion as a solution, and as a gun owner and hunter, most gun owners had nothing to fear from him. Kerry is a New Democrat; conservatives should learn the difference between old and new Democrats, because most of the true conservative's issues, such as welfare reform and law and order have been co-opted by the New Democrats and handled better than the promises and lip service from the so-called right.


There is much to dislike from the "old" wing of the Democratic party, and many of them deserve their reputations. But, ever since Clinton worked so hard to actually pass Nafta (which was a Republican initiative), even though it ticked off his tradtional labor union support, the New Democrats are the true conservatives. The roles of the parties have switched several times in history (Lincoln was a Republican, but would not recognize the party today), and are in the process of switching again. There is no corresponding "New Republican" movement, and there is certainly a lot wrong with the current stranglehold by the radical right.
 

OkeeDon

New member
DaveNay said:
I think those of us who wear the self appointed "liberal" label (hopefully, I will meet your criteria of a real liberal, Don) place G.W.Bush closer to a Fundamentalist than a Conservative, and even we would be happier with a true conservative in office.

Exactly. I actually voted for Barry Goldwater because I felt at the time, and still do, that Lyndon Johnson was evil and one of the worse presidents of this century. Of course, Goldwater was a true conservative, not like the current most controversial Congressman from the same state.

Dave, your choice of signature places you and I on the same track. I first saw it as a bumper sticker on the back of a pickup truck in Stuart, Florida, about 28 years ago. I had just suffered a business failure and was pretty depressed; when I saw it, it made me laugh, and helped me pull myself up by the bootstraps.

It reminds me of another favorite bumper sticker, which I think I'll add to my signature.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
DAVE. . . I agree with you on that.

Shifting gears a bit, it looks like Blago might be the doom for the Dems in Illinois, especially if Edgar makes a comeback. Jim Edgar is still popular and could sweep enough Republicans into office with him to wrest away power from the Democrats control. Heck some of the pundits actually think Edgar in 2008 could swing Illinois into the "red state" column in the presidential campaign. Edgar, being as moderate as he is, is attractive to many Democratic voters, and is not offensive to Illinois Repubs, largely because they view him as a realistic chance to get into power, even if they only do it in name, but not in policy.


DON . . . definite problem with our termanology on what a "sportsman" is, for me it is not someone who plays hockey. As I grew up the term "sportsman" as applied to what I was thinking was a person who hunted or fished. As in the old TV show "The American Sportsman" or as defined in the magazine Sports Afield. There is no question in my mind that gun owners and hunters had everything to fear from Mr Kerry. I suppose we can argue back and forth forever on that, but I doubt either will change the other's mind.

I also doubt his fiscal conservatism, mainly from the voting record he possessed. But I am not saying that I like GW's fiscal policy, I think both would be horrible choices.

As to the OLD and NEW wings of the Democratic Party, that I am not sure about. I agree they exist, but I am not sure that the new wing is very well defined yet. I think it is being defined and is in a development phase. Senators Kennedy, Pelosi & Biden and their ilk have tremendous power so even a New Democrate would have all sorts of internal party strife when the tax and spend boys start to dig into the coffers (again, not making any excuses for the problems of the Republican party's lack of fiscal restraint).


Taking the discussion a bit closer to home, Florida looks to be up for an interesting primary in your Governor's race. Jim Davis seems to have a nice logistical lead by deploying field staff and being ahead in fund raising. Maddox and Smith are lagging behind Davis. Seems to me that Scott Maddox is to controversial to be elected no matter what, he mismanaged the party when he was Dem Chairman and I doubt most party insiders would forgive him. From what I can see he trails Davis by at least a half a million dollars in funding his campaign. I'm not seeing much about Rod Smith, which seems to be a bad sign for him.
 

LarryRB

Member
As usual, each has their own reasons for a particular party or person. Not too many years ago in a small Massachusetts town, I was the elected selectman, the chair of the republican party, (all 16 of us) against 1100 democrats... Was the youngest or one of the youngest ever voted into that town and held other elected offices, (all part time) long before I decided to run for selectman... To say Kerry is a "new democrat" is something you will never ever convince me of in your lifetime or mine..... What you saw and heard while he was on the road is nothing close to the real deal.... Here in Mass, he is famous for tax, spend, tax, and spend some more... He, like Kennedy, would vote ten gazillion dollars to study the sex life of a middle amazonian basin red breasted twirble long before helping his constituency, you know, the ones who vote them in... At times, it is nice and probably OK to help others, if the reasons are reasonable... His military record is terrible. He won't release records from it, particularly after the French accords meetings between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho... Anyone who gets purple hearts slipping on a ladder while climbing into a boat is disgracefull as far as I'm concerned... HE would go over and scratch Bin Ladens balls if they were itchy and Bin Laden asked hin to.. IF you think Sept 11th was something, we should have had him as president...Okeedon, I think your a very bright man and I like what you normally post, same for Skurka.. It is your right how you vote and think as it is mine.. I am just stating as a once town selectman and having to deal with municipal problems, you may get another view point other that the vitriol spewed on a campaign circuit.. I certainly don't have many answers and will not suggest someone to run for President next time around. ALthough, I was always for and voted for Steve Forbes. Of anyone, I think he is the best.. Too bad he couldn't get past primaries.. OK guys, fire away..
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
LarryRB said:
OK guys, fire away..


You won't catch any fire from me. After all you said I was was bright:p

Forbes brings up an interesting concept. I wonder if he could have gotten anything done. Seems to me a Forbes presidency could have shifted most of the real power to the Congress as he would have had to compromise with them constantly to get anything done. And I also wonder what the make-up of the Congress would have been (in terms of % Repubs -vs- % Dems) because the leading parties in the House & Senate would have controlled much of the adjenda, no matter what he wanted. He was just too much of an outsider, even within his own party he was well outside the party norm. Great ideas, but I wonder if any outsider could actually accomplish something or anything. I suppose the same could be said about Ross Perot.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
I have to give Kerry credit in a certain area of financial business; his women. It's hard to fault his financial choices there. :rolleyes:

However, I personally know an O-7 (if you are/were in the military you will know that rank) who served with Kerry. His personal account of Kerry is more of resume' padding along with numerous photo ops which were carefully arranged. According to my friend who has since retired from the military, there is a certain report concerning military medical records that Kerry has adamantly refused to release until he can either make them go away or get them doctored. Therefore, due to my personal insight on Kerry's military "career", I have to count that as zero. I think Hillary has him beat there.:eek: I think documents can prove that she is more aggressive in combat than Kerry.;)

I think the Democrat's best chance for the top post will be from Evan Bayh. He definitely has the looks, charisma, and a relatively moderate track record that would seemingly groom him for the position. Being my affilitation, I hope that the Democrat party blows him out. I honestly do not know what Republican is going to be in the running right now who can take him. The solice if he wins would be that I think the voters would get what they expect with him, as opposed to the less than honorable and less than truthful Clinton. Heck, I'd love to go out and party with Clinton. I think he would be a great guy to run with. He sure knows how to get the women! But, what he says and what he does just don't match. Let's just hope the Democrats shove Bayh out of the way.:)

I'll stick my neck out now and predict that if Evan Bayh runs for the Presidency in '08, he will not be defeated. That's a bold statement from me, but I also do know some people from college days who have now worked for and around Evan for several years, and they tell me that he is for real, and not just a pretty face. Maybe he will decide not to run and chose to devote time to his lovely family.:D
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Dargo said:
I'll stick my neck out now and predict that if Evan Bayh runs for the Presidency in '08, he will not be defeated. That's a bold statement from me, but I also do know some people from college days who have now worked for and around Evan for several years, and they tell me that he is for real, and not just a pretty face.


I go to Las Vegas a couple times a year. I don't gamble. But I would take that bet in a heartbeat. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in H, E, double toothpicks.

Then again, I don't think Hillary does either.

Hillary has nowhere to go but down. She has 100% name recognition. And even at that she has only about 40% of the Democrat's who claim to support her. Kerry still has 11% (as of last month). Evan has something like 1%, but he has almost no name recognition either (in national polls). He is far less offensive to moderates and Republicans than Hillary, but has a huge uphill climb and to be blunt he also has the spectre of Dan Quayle hanging like a noose around his neck being that many will say that he is from Indiana (which is true) and there will be unfavorable association for another 10 years with Indiana in the national scheme of politics. Honestly, Evan is a great politician, even if I don't like his policy I will give him credit where due, but give him 8 to 10 more years and he will be ready.

Anyone have an thoughts on Condi Rice for either VP or Pres? I think the time is rapidly approaching when a party will be hard pressed to put up 2 rich white guys as the ticket.
 

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
B_Skurka said:
I don't think he has a snowball's chance in H, E, double toothpicks.

It is OK to use HELL. I don't think that the word filters will remove it, if there even are word filters... :D
 

OkeeDon

New member
DON . . . definite problem with our termanology on what a "sportsman" is, for me it is not someone who plays hockey. As I grew up the term "sportsman" as applied to what I was thinking was a person who hunted or fished. As in the old TV show "The American Sportsman" or as defined in the magazine Sports Afield. There is no question in my mind that gun owners and hunters had everything to fear from Mr Kerry. I suppose we can argue back and forth forever on that, but I doubt either will change the other's mind.

Kerry killed 2 pheasants in Iowa and a goose in Ohio during the campaign. Conservative detractors tried to paint these as "photo ops", but the simple fact remains that he had a lot more to lose from his base by portraying himself as a hunter than he had to gain from the conservatives who won't believe anything good about him even if it was coated in peanut butter. To me, a non-hunter, this was a protrayal of the true John Kerry, and I respected him for revealing himself more than I was disappointed by his so-called "sport". If he was the devil incarnate L I B E R A L that he was painted to be, he would not have gone near those shotguns with a 50' pole. I know; I would not.

Since he DID kill the defenseless birds, you have stretched my credulity by saying you don't believe he's a sportsman. What does it take? A regular blood bath?
 

OkeeDon

New member
(re: Steve Forbes):
Great ideas, but I wonder if any outsider could actually accomplish something or anything. I suppose the same could be said about Ross Perot.

I don't know which of them had the nuttier ideas. Have you ever seriously researched the notion of a flat tax? Due to the existing web if tax laws and legal loopholes, and because of the way I structured my investments primarily into real estate, I have paid very little income tax for years. I actually pay less than most of the folks who get trapped into the Alternative Minimum would have paid in the standard tables, but I've never been subject to it. The worst thing in the world, for me, would be a flat tax or a national sales tax. I'd pay a heck of a lot more than I do, now.
 

OkeeDon

New member
Anyone have an thoughts on Condi Rice for either VP or Pres?

Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes and now Condi Rice? Are you deliberately trying to incite me with the silliest candidates you can dream up? What's next, Oliver North?
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
B_Skurka said:
Anyone have an thoughts on Condi Rice for either VP or Pres? I think the time is rapidly approaching when a party will be hard pressed to put up 2 rich white guys as the ticket.

Not a chance. I honestly don't think Rice has had a unique thought of her own for the last 6 years. I agree that the hopes of fronting rich white fraternity boys are starting to dwindle, but the alternatives will probably come from among the ranks of the Barak Obamas and the Jesse Jackson Juniors (Trust me, he is no where near as radical as his father). Personally, I hope that Obama takes a nice long time and establishes himself in the political world. If he manages to keep a level head, he should be able to go far in this world. As far as Blago goes...he was a lame duck from the first day he took office. The former gov Ryan had everything so covered in political white-out that the people elected the nearest candidate that could string two word together, even if the southern 9/10 of the state had never heard of him nor could pronounce his name. I could probably accept Edgar running again, even with hi teetotaling beliefs (minor nit-pick). The one person who could easily bring IL back to the red zone would be Jim Thompson. He could get re-elected in a heartbeat.

Dave
 

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
OkeeDon said:
(re: Steve Forbes):

................. I have paid very little income tax for years. I actually pay less than most of the folks who get trapped into the Alternative Minimum would have paid in the standard tables, but I've never been subject to it. The worst thing in the world, for me, would be a flat tax or a national sales tax. I'd pay a heck of a lot more than I do, now.

This is why there are people that are in favor of the flat tax, so you tax dogers will start paying what the rest of us have to pay.
 

OkeeDon

New member
Taking the discussion a bit closer to home, Florida looks to be up for an interesting primary in your Governor's race.

I'm embarrassed to say that you know more about Florida's governor race than I do. I have seen virtually nothing in local coverage of any candidates. I have no idea who is running, nor do I know anything about any of them. I do know that Jeb cannot run again. I did a Google search for the 2006 Florida governor's race, and found one conservative site that quoted a poll saying the the Republicans looked good. But, the poll said that 61% of Democrats were undecided. That's because the race has not started here, for all intents and purposes. This particular site allowed comments; there were vitrtually no comments about the governor's race; it quickly degenerated into people saying which of the gubernatorial candidates would have a better change to defeat Bill Nelson for the Senate seat.

I do know that I would have a great deal of difficulty voting for anyone named "Maddox".
 

AndyM

Charter Member
Re: Welcome......

Welcome Don! Haven't seen you at the other place lately... Good to have you here! :)
 

OkeeDon

New member
Thanks, Andy. Altthough, I may be in the process of wearing out my welcome. The Powers-That-Be may regret putting up a political forum

Speaking of Hilary (OK, a couple of you mentioned her), I don't know if I'd vote for her or not. I think we could do worse. The majority of people in New York think she's doing just fine as their Senator; probably comes as a surprise to some of them. But, she has ability. Second, she has always supported Bill, and contrary to popular opinion, Bill was just about as different from old-school Democrats as one man can be and still get elected. If ya'll would take time to drop the facade of astonishment and horror at how bad a man you think he is, and examine the job he did as President, you'd be hard-pressed to say you're better off now than you were then. A lot of what made him good at the job was Hilary.

She's now positioned herself very effectively as not only a moderate New Democrat, but as a centrist who embraces some conservative ideals. As usual, the right-wing pundits try to dismiss it as electioneering, but to me, it rings true.

Like I said, we could do worse. Heck, we could elect Jeb. As long as we're throwing out all these scenarios, how about the one in which Dick Cheney resigns for health reasons (there was just some new information about that in the last couple of days, setting us up, no doubt), and Good Ol' W appoints his baby brother to the job, just in time to run him up the flagpole for the next election. I guess it depends on just how much Jeb is willing to kowtow to Rove; that might be a tall order, because Jeb appears to be a mite smarter than Dubya; certainly he's more articulate. But, he's conveniently out of a job just about the right time.

But, back to Hilary -- she's certainly developed a thick skin (she had to, living with Bill as a man), and as someone said, she's tougher than a lot of the men. The new TV program, Commander in Chief, starting tomorrow night (Tuesday) on ABC, might be an interesting gambit to prepare the country for the possibility.

Like I said, at this time I don't know how I'd vote. If there was an interesting and intelligent candidate from either party to challenge her, it could be a tough choice. On the Dem side, even though someone lumped him in with the old Dems, if Joe Biden ever decided to run, I'd have to give him serious consideration. Mainly because I like the way he says what needs to be said without sugar coating it; sort of the Dem counterpart to John McCain. Who I could also vote for depending on how well he can shake his party's ultra right-wing base.

Bill Frist has hopes, but he doesn't have a prayer. He blew his wad in Florida on the Terry Schiavo case, and I don't think he can win without Florida. He has very little credibility left.

I judge any Democrats potential by how many lies they tell about him or her on Fox News. The more outlandish the claims, the more credibility the candidate has. The "bair and falanced" guys only spring into action when they're worried about someone. I spend a lot of time watching Fox News, maybe more than some of the choir they preach to. It comes under the heading of "Know Your Enemy".
 

OkeeDon

New member
LarryRB said:
...To say Kerry is a "new democrat" is something you will never ever convince me of in your lifetime or mine...OK guys, fire away..

I've spent some time deciding how to respond. Basically, everything you said was Fox News Conventional Wisdom and wildly overstated. Heck, I think George W. is a nincompoop, but I've never said such wild and outlandish stuff about him. No one is as bad as you painted Kerry. "...vote ten gazillion dollars to study the sex life of a middle amazonian basin red breasted twirble..." "...He would go over and scratch Bin Ladens balls if they were itchy and Bin Laden asked hin to..." How do I respond to exaggerated crap like that?

So, obviously, and by your own statement, there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
 

LarryRB

Member
not Fox news,. but being part of small town Massachusetts politics... And as I stated, yes, you will nver convince me otherwise.. I'm a pretty hard core republican. I don't always agree with some of their platform and I can't agree on anything democratic. Republicans are far from always being right and the same with democrats. I will tell you this and it probably is bordering getting thrown off of here., I was fired as the republican town chairman for one simple reason, I did not go along with the " no abortion" period way of thinking. Quite the opposite in fact. There are times like incest, rape, sickness and probably one hundred other things to "warrant" an abortion... I would rather pay a local, clean, legal hospital to perform an early abortion than another unwanted kid on a state welfare system for 18 or so years... I forget the figure Mass posted at the time, it was unbelievable, believe me.... Might sound cruel and probably I have no right posting this, I'm just stating, I don't adhere to everything republicans platforms back.... I highly doubt there will ever be a "party" or parts thereof that will pass a majority of peoples ideas. Again, that is why I liked Forbes,, Was to radical for the party and an outsider as Bob mentioned earlier,,, I like outsiders with guts and it wouldn't phase me a bit.., I have no problem seeing a female like Condi RIce have Pres or Vice Press and I believe this country is closer than most think, considering females in high office... enough said by me...
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
LarryRB said:
I'm a pretty hard core republican. I don't always agree with some of their platform and I can't agree on anything democratic. ...for one simple reason, I did not go along with the " no abortion" period way of thinking. Quite the opposite in fact.

Ummmmm.....welcome the "Liberal" and "Democratic" party buddy!

(I quote them because as Larrys post quite clearly shows, they are simply labels, and cannot in any way be defined as a category.)

I have met several "hardcore" republicans whos only determining criteria for a candidate is if they do or do not support the Roe v. Wade decision. Regardless of all other considerations including monetary, foreign policy and health care.

Dave
 

OkeeDon

New member
LarryRB said:
...I was fired as the republican town chairman for one simple reason, I did not go along with the " no abortion" period way of thinking. Quite the opposite in fact. There are times like incest, rape, sickness and probably one hundred other things to "warrant" an abortion... I would rather pay a local, clean, legal hospital to perform an early abortion than another unwanted kid on a state welfare system for 18 or so years...

Oh my gosh, another one like Skurka and Dargo and company. Just when I think I have them all pegged as Bob likes to describe it, as "...somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun", they come out with a statement that makes such ultimate sense that I have to shake my head and wonder how they ever came to describe themselves a conservative.

Like Colin Powell. The man says, "I owe everything I've achieved to affirmative action", then declares himself a Republican. How can he live with himself?

Maybe I should identify myself a little further. For 43 years I was a registered Independent or whatever variety of that description was at the time (currently in Florida it's "Non Partison". There's a good story about that. For years, we were Independents. Then, some bright bulb in Tallahassee allows some guy to establish the "Independent Party" as an official party. The guy then promptly claims every Independent voter in the state to be a member of his party. More than a few people protested, so at enormous expense, the state had to mail everyone an explanation and offer to let them change their preference to "Non Partison". Now, I'm waiting for someone to start the Non Partison Party...)

I refused to be labeled precisely because I could not sleep at night with some of the planks in either major party's platform. And, the splinter parties were even more ridiculous -- how can a Consitution party have a major religion plank? ("The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.")

But, I have always leaned to the left of center. Close to the center, but still to the left, especially on social issues. Often to the right of center on economic issues, but still with a definite tilt to the left. The reason? I see the right as being inherently more selfish and the left as inherently more compassionate; I think one is Bad and the other is Good. I also think that both parties carry it to the extreme in their nethermost regions, but remember, I'm inherently a moderate centrist. I eschew the extremes of either party.

In the State of Florida, as an Independent (or Non Partison), I'm denied the opportunity to vote in primary elections. Only Republicans or Democrats can vote in a primary, and there is no cross-over. I admit I was tempted to register as a Republican so I could vote for the worst possible candidate to make it easier for a Democrat to win, but I decided that only Republicans play those kinds of dirty tricks. So, as Bob would say, I chose the lesser of two evils and registered as a Democrat, solely so I could vote in the primaries.

Ironically, by the time the Florida primary came around in 2004, the issue was already decided and John Kerry was already the candidate. I never got to exercise my new-found privilege (I would have voted for Wes Clark). Since I support the Republican candidate for our Congressional district (Tim Foley) and he usually has no opposition, and since our city councilmen are non-partison, and since many of the Democratic candidates for other offices don't face any primary opposition, the whole thing becomes an exercise in futility. I think I'm going to have to go back to neutral ground; in Florida, I won't lose much.

I am a bit of a liberal and a bit of a conservative. I am a bit of a libertarian and a bit of a non-religious constitutionalist. I'm more of a federalist than a states rightist, because I think people should be treated the same regardless of the state they live in. I'm definitely a centrist. Because I think they are inherently tied together, especially in today's climate, I should state that I'm a religious agnostic (Bertrand Russel; "What is an Agnostic?")

I prefer things that are logical and sensible. For example, it makes sense to me that the 50 states need a unifying central government to provide such things as the states cannot individually provide. It makes sense to me that such a central government has expenses and therefore needs an income. It's logical to me that the central government has no "product" in the sense that it can be voluntarily "marketed", thus the concept of taxation to support those activities is logical, especially since every citizen benefits. It does not, however, make sense to me to borrow those necessary funds and defer the repayment to some future generation. Therefore, I plead guilty to believing in "tax and spend" rather than "borrow and spend".

I believe as fervently as any declared conservative that those expenditures should be as few as possible; I differ in determining what is essential. I agree that the study of the sex life of a middle amazonian basin red breasted twirble is irresponsible, but I assert that once the decision was made many years ago to alter the Mississippi, that adequate funds for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the levees is a necessity. I may think it was a mistake to create the levees in the first place, but I could not in good conscience reduce the funds for maintaining them, and any administration that does so should be impeached. Another example: I adamently believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq (and said so before we went), but once the initial mistake was made, I believe it would do more harm than good to leave before the job is complete or determined to be infeasible no matter what. I WILL hold the people who made the original mistake forever responsible for the tragic deaths of the brave soldiers they placed there. It didn't make any sense to go; now that we are there, it doesn't make any sense to leave early.

That's what I believe, at least in part.
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
Ok Okee, you'll like this one. Since I am fairly well known locally with my little business and also doing some TV commercials for some other businesses, I was "interviewed" by our local Republican party to possibly run for a vacant office. It didn't go so well. I listened, but politely refused to change my position of several issues. For the sake of "not" arguing, I won't mention which topics (but I'd imagine you can figure out a few).

A real funny thing was that a good friend of mine who is a prominent local attorney and a Democrat had the exact same experience on his side. He wouldn't fit precisely into their mold and they wouldn't back him if he wouldn't change on some issues. Imagine that!

Anyway, without the backing of one of the two major parties here, I really don't see a person getting elected to any real office unless they are independently wealthy and already have a huge name recognition. Even then, it would be difficult to cut and run from both of our major parties. It is my guess that this fact is what leaves us choosing between the lesser of two evils. What do you think?
 

LarryRB

Member
Not a problem with me Don. I happen to be a republican, what I consider a middle of the road type... I don't believe in intying Roe vs Wade like the ultra conservatives do. As I stated above, and most think it is cruel... I feel the woman has her own right to choose... Who am I to turn down a woman who does not want a child, early stages, especially if it was incest or rape...

I believe in much smaller government and especially sizing down foreign aid considerably. Don't know it you travelled the world at all, I know I did a lot of travelling in the early 70's, and found we were not liked very much. We use cash to force our ideas and ways of living on other very foreign to us, cultures, who in turn allow a few head honcho's to become millionaires and the rest of the people continue suffering.. Something is wrong with the picture here....
All this wasted monies overseas, and in my way of thinking, here is Boston's blundering big dig project, the continuing repair of N.O. levees, which, most monies are mis-directed from anyway... This is a local N.O. and Louisianna problem, not federal gvt as most claim..
Boston's big dig project has waste factored in long before the project started..
As far as Iraq, I don't think we proved anything.. However, this said, we are quickly returning to the Vietnam days when I see Jane Fonda in her Mc Donalds powered grease bus, touring again anti, anti, anti... What Fonda/Streisand, Phil Donahue and others of that ilk can't seem to learn or understand is, it is OK to talk not in support of, it is not OK to push it over the limits... What they are doing, and doing slowly, is undermining the soldiers fighting spirit that are in Iraq/Afghanistan wars and this ultimately leads to more needless death,. There is enough death as it is, why cause more breaking the soldiers spirit, while they fight. Once a soldier in war theaters starts thinking they are wasting their time, the numbers climb exponentially.. I can tell you this after flying choppers two tours in Vietnam... I've seen this first hand.. You may not like Iraq or other places, and this is fine. Undermining active fighting soldiers spirits are not fine and only exacerbate an already bad and dangerous problem....
Getting back to democrats, and why I am adamately opposed to them,, someone above mentioned Barak Obama from Illinois. Here is a prime example of a state representative that is not only, anti military,, he is causing tremendous grief against this whole countries vet population.. Last year he started a case against the Veterans admin, because 2.8% of Illinois vets collect disability... If he or his staff did some research first, he would have found out that Illinois has produced 2% of it's elligible population to war since WWII... So, 2% of it's populaton collecting 2.8% disability is apples to apples as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't think so, and now vets collecting disability are being called back in to defend themselves. The problem with this is he stated it will be the "MOST FAIR" investigation ever... It is not only very unfair, it is pathetic at best... You see, the Korean. Kosovo/Panama/Grenada/Dessert storm 1-2/ Afghanistan/ and other skirmishes are exempt,, the only ones being called in are vietnam vets... Again. the Vietnam war was probably very wrong. The fact is, as I see it, no one will ever let this one go... When one is asked by it's country to fight, even if wrong,. we should support those people and not continuously beat them to a pulp. And yes, I take it personally as I have three large caliber bullets through my legs, have spent over 65 months of the last 30 years in hospitals and collect a disability, I find this beyond belief to be CONSTANTLY treated like a third class citizen because of a name like Vietnam... At least one thing, so far the ones returning now, aren't treated terrible. I hope for this countries sake that in the future, the citizens of this country don't start treating todays military persons like we are being treated personally... I've typed enough here to last two weeks.. going to take a long time off..
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Dargo said:
I was "interviewed" by our local Republican party to possibly run for a vacant office. It didn't go so well. I listened, but politely refused to change my position of several issues.


DARGO - sort of off topic . . . I was recently pre-interviewed, prior to formal court deposition, by a law firm from Tennessee. They were representing Altria Corp (Philip Morris Cigarettes, Kraft Food, Oscar Meyer Hot Dogs, Velveta Cheese, etc). These were big time lawyers!!!

The case was a group of distributors, very much like myself, who where claiming unfair practices. I was one of a small group of key witnesses in a federal suit. If you've never been in federal court, it is a world of its own with special rules and very high cost lawyers. This was one case where I was not being brought in as an "expert witness" and paid for my testimony, this was simply a situation where I was a regular witness for the defense. Funny thing was during the interview I pretty much called Altria every bad name in the book, told the lawyers I didn't care for their defendant at all, and that I've met the President and the Chairman several times and thought they were assholes. Lawyers didn't know what the heck to do with me. But when they asked pretenant questions, I gave them the truth and my deposition was one of the key factors in getting the case thrown out of court and a bench ruling in favor of Altria. It was pretty funny from my perspective to see because the lawyers knew what I would say if someone asked the "wrong" question. They had to very carefully word their questions when the real questioning started!!! I knew what they were doing, they knew what they were doing and they knew what would happen if they gave me an opening to express my thoughts on a few other topics.


Don, be realisitic about Mr. Kerry . . . just because Mr. Kerry sold his east coast liberal soul and pulled the trigger to kill a couple birds does not make him a sportsman. In fact he walked around with his finger on the trigger of a loaded gun (there is plenty of photo evidence of that) and he did not allow himself to be photographed holding the birds, in fact he refused to hold them. Hmmm. Not a sportsman. But a great photo op to dupe some people into believing he was not the anti-gun & anti-hunting zealot that his voting record proved him to be. In fact he has a solid voting record on many issues, he is solidly anti-sportsman. I'm judging him based on his voting record, not his campaign.

. . . Florida governor's race: Don, honestly, I think this is the most interesting part of the electoral process. Scott Maddox was a very poor manager of the Democratic party, in fact under him it lost a lot of its organizational abilities, but worse than that he didn't manage the financial aspects at all well and was the Dem. chairman for the state until this year. Party insiders will resent him forever for those things and will likely undermine his chances from within. You also have state senator Rod Smith in the mix. Smith is a decent fundraiser, he is lagging behind Davis right now but the lead can made up if he kicks it into gear. So right now, the leader in your state looks to be Jim Davis. But it is early. Things change. To be honest, I have no clue who the Repubs will run.

Dave . . . Thompson would beat everyone, but he is not in the political picture. But seriously watch Dick Durbin, if the Repubs pull a popular ex-politician out of their pocket it is possible that Senator Durbin will have a seriously hard time being re-elected. Durbin has made many mistakes with his publicly embarassing comments.
 
Top