Write Review
1,982,902 Total Reviews 4,127 New Reviews
8,021 Users Online

Politics and Religion

I didn't say that Democrats lost seats, it's correct to say they were wimps.
9-man 1600 reads
posted

It was shameful the way Congress rolled over for Reagan. The liberals there lost their confidence . . . in Liberalism.

Bork was the one time the Democrats asserted themselves.

Now for what upset you the most:

"So far this century, the Republican's problems have been that at best they forgot they were supposed to be conservatives and at worst they mistook themselves for Democrats."

If Republicans were elected to be conservatives or to act like such, you might as well state that their conservatives.  

My apology for trying to make sense of your cracked nonsense. Yes, truly I thought the color purple trying to be the color purple was the problem with you're thinking. It was the best I could come up with to interpret this garbled, vague, cloud-thinking.

The brackets will show what I had to add to make any sense of your statement. Let me go through this one more time:

1) Republicans have problems

2) The problems have been that they forgot [lapsed] they were (supposed to be) [elected to be] [sworn to be] [were] conservatives [rea]
[affected] at best [no good interpretation]  

3) or they mistook [acted like][became][changed into] themselves for Democrats.

You see, without a stroke or injury, you're not likely to forget you're conservative, unless you mean those guys were affecting conservatism and one day forgot to. That's only part of what's wrong with that sentence. It's impossible to tell what you literally meant.

If you're thinking in those vague terms, then you're dedication to conservatism is explained.  





-- Modified on 10/18/2008 9:46:54 AM

9-man2875 reads


Nothing is working for Repubs. Not the Ayers connection, not charges of communism, not connections to Rezko or Alinsky. Not ACORN's foibles with voting registrations. Not Sara Palin on the ticket. Conservatives must be feeling largely the helplessness that liberals felt at the beginning of the Reagan administration. The frustration that I felt as I became political.

IMHO, the nation is through with its experiment with conservatism after multiple traumas. No, I never wished for the nation to suffer so that a Democrat would be elected. I much prefer that the last eight years never happened, the 90s rocked and the 21st century has sucked.

Considering I was afraid enough of the Bush administration's power grab to consider moving to another country, I can't feel sorry for conservatives who now find that their political tactics are ineffective. I've been there too often, guys. It's somebody else's turn.

And here's a picture that best describes McCain's lost campaign and Republican hopes:  


ReplyQuoteReport
9-man1746 reads




-- Modified on 10/16/2008 10:27:23 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground1164 reads

Clinton was mostly along for the ride. The greatest thing he did was balance staying out of the way (i.e. not fucking things up) vs. keeping enough grid lock going to remind the Republicans that most of them were conservatives.

So far this century, the Republican's problems have been that at best they forgot they were supposed to be conservatives and at worst they mistook themselves for Democrats.

BTW, libs felt helpless during Reagan? You have a poor memory. The House was totally under Dem control and the Senste was only briefly and barely run by the Republicans. Reagan was forced into repeated deals with back stabbing House leaders.

ReplyQuoteReport
charlie4451738 reads

You are trying to point out the differences between 2 categories of capitalist scumbags.

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground1941 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Blackbeltxxx6221 reads

John Lenin that is.

ReplyQuoteReport
Echochamber1268 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
9-man3177 reads


The liberals during Reagan had to face the fallout from the Carter administration. They didn't have much power or pull over Reagan, and as was shown during Iran-Contra, Reagan had little intention of following laws. Plus, Reagan was able to stack agencies with people who were directly opposed to the agencies' cause.

The Presidency is very important in American politics. Clinton held the line against conservatives and distracted them. Once he was out of office and conservatives were left to do what they wanted, that's when the country was wrecked.

"So far this century, the Republican's problems have been that at best they forgot they were supposed to be conservatives and at worst they mistook themselves for Democrats."

This is a very vague statement. What's an example of one and the other and how is one better than the other?

I'll try to answer what I think it must be saying: if conservatives have trouble acting like conservatives, it could mean a few different things:

1) Conservatism doesn't work in real life, thus, it's impossible stay to its principles consistently.

2) Conservatives themselves are repulsed by it and won't stay to the principles consistently,

3) Conservatives are dishonest as a whole, and don't stay to its principles when it's inconvenient. It leads one to believe dishonesty at some level is a conservative trait.

Those are the most likely three, and I think it's some combination of all of them.

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground795 reads

Your entire first paragraph is (as par for your course) just totally made up shit. There was no fallout to the Democrat Congress from Carter (they lost a few seats but remained firmly in control, 272-163 and 55-45). No pull? I guess they were wimps. You never heard of Bork? It was the Republicans that were wimps in the Congress.

We are in agreement about Clinton. As I said, he maintained gridlock.

Now to the point of my post. . .

Maybe the reason you’re confused is because you DIDN’T READ IT! Your interpretation of it as “conservatives having trouble acting like conservatives” is simply NUTS. I never said any such thing. Your line of thought is like arguing whether the color purple has trouble being the color purple.  If conservatives weren’t acting like conservatives then they wouldn’t be conservatives.

What I said was REPUBLICANS weren’t acting like conservatives. Indeed they have been acting like Democrats in regards to spending money and being swooned into corruption.

ReplyQuoteReport
9-man1601 reads

It was shameful the way Congress rolled over for Reagan. The liberals there lost their confidence . . . in Liberalism.

Bork was the one time the Democrats asserted themselves.

Now for what upset you the most:

"So far this century, the Republican's problems have been that at best they forgot they were supposed to be conservatives and at worst they mistook themselves for Democrats."

If Republicans were elected to be conservatives or to act like such, you might as well state that their conservatives.  

My apology for trying to make sense of your cracked nonsense. Yes, truly I thought the color purple trying to be the color purple was the problem with you're thinking. It was the best I could come up with to interpret this garbled, vague, cloud-thinking.

The brackets will show what I had to add to make any sense of your statement. Let me go through this one more time:

1) Republicans have problems

2) The problems have been that they forgot [lapsed] they were (supposed to be) [elected to be] [sworn to be] [were] conservatives [rea]
[affected] at best [no good interpretation]  

3) or they mistook [acted like][became][changed into] themselves for Democrats.

You see, without a stroke or injury, you're not likely to forget you're conservative, unless you mean those guys were affecting conservatism and one day forgot to. That's only part of what's wrong with that sentence. It's impossible to tell what you literally meant.

If you're thinking in those vague terms, then you're dedication to conservatism is explained.  





-- Modified on 10/18/2008 9:46:54 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
RightwingUnderground820 reads

Declaring oneself to be a conservative or a liberal means nothing. It's one's actions that matter.

Your problem is that you use Republican and conservative interchangeably (and continue to do so). It's not a valid or appropriate thing to do.

BTW, go back and read some history instead of just making shit up. Do you think Reagan put us into deficits, spending all that money, all by himself? Read what the actual deal was suppose to be and then what Tip O'Neil turned it into.

-- Modified on 10/18/2008 11:27:39 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
jerseyflyer1345 reads

RWU, right on. Does the name of that alcholic shithead, Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil come to mind? Do you remember the trip he made to China and negotiated agreements with the Chinese when he was without portfolio? He reported back to Reagan, and the Prez said, WTF, I'm not doing any such thing as that to which you agreed to with them. You had no authority to do that. Kind of like when Pelosi went to the middle east, without the State Department's blessing.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!