NationStates Jolt Archive

My mother, conservative to the hilt, admitted to me that she thinks the war was a mistake. She used the phrase, "Heads should roll," in reference to Donald Rumsfeld. Although, I must admit that she is well informed and is somewhat open minded, this is a woman who listened to Rush religiously, attends church weekly, and would probably take a bullet for Reagan's lifeless corpse.

Of course this relevation comes a month after the election, and about 2 years after I told her it would be a mistake, but no "I told you so"s, I'm having my own private celebration.

So my question is this: Has anybody else noticed a shift like this? Do you think the republican party is going to be forced to revert back to a fiscally conservative, less global stance? Do you think the party is already too far right and will split? Or do you think that no change is forthcoming?

Also, try and leave particular politicians out of this debate, try and keep it about ideologies.

I would agree. And if it does, it spells only trouble for centrist Democrats, who are hastily trying to occupy the fiscal conservative location as we speak.

Of course, if we get another terrorist attack, that will fuel a new round of Americans Stomping On Some Place We Can't Pronounce, and everyone will forget about what happened before that date.

I think there will eventually be a split...but not until the democrats reform and actually win votes...and not for a long time. As a Republican, and as a decent person, I am against gay rights, abortion, and the like...but if those things became "non-issues" that everyone simply accepted...my life wouldn't be much different. Gays would make me sick either way, abortion would piss me off either way...but still...not too much change.

Economically though, the democrat's position would in fact change my life. I'd have much higher taxes, and I'd get to see my money wasted on those who decide that buying beer/crack/jordan basketball shoes/big rims while living off wellfare is more important than finding a job and buying what you can afford.

Now that's not to say that i'm not a social conservative as well. I still strongly support the second amendment and I'm an avid gun fan. I hunt (it's not a redneck thing...people would suprise you) and I shoot various weapons in gun clubs. Affirmative action is bad news, Unions are more corrupt than those who are against them, and there's nothing wrong with America being the strongest nation on the planet. If that means that we are "world police" then so be it.

The crossroads comes when certain Republicans sit on their front porch with their cowboy boots and their shotgun across their lap and complain about the excess of urban life and the like. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm well off, and I partake in various "moral excesses" that most of the hardline bible-thumping social conservatives cringe at. (Sex out of marriage, vanity, drinking parties, buying expensive things, etc.) There is most definately a difference in the conservative party. There is the person from the country who loves his guns and his nascar and hates "all dem faggots" and "niggers" while he's at it just because he can. There is also the business person who realizes that a more open-market and smaller government controls means more money for them, their company, and in turn those who work for them...correct percentages of pay be damned.

Will there eventually be a split? Of course...that's called history...that's called politics. Will it be forced upon the Republicans? Hell no. Are the Republicans "too far right?" Hell no. The Democrats are most definately the party which is further from the center. Look who they chose as their leader in the election. Look at the results of the election. It is the centrists which win elections, and more turned out than ever for Mr. Bush. Obviously Kerry was too left for America...just not for Boston. The Democrats, more than anyone, need to re-create their image. They need to get rid of Kerry, Kennedy, and that loser Hilary Clinton. They can no longer count on idiots like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson and teenagers who wear "punk clothes" or go to art schools.

To win, Democrats, need to find a respectable leader who will once again bring them towards the middle...once again re-claim the south...once again re-claim the religious people. Until then, there is no need for Republicans to change.

Steel Butterfly....that wasa very eloquent way of putting it.....and it didn't involve alienating people who don't agree with you.....

Not many people in high gov't are Neo-cons. but there are enough, in high enough places tht they can spell trouble for republican party.... don't think bush is neo-con, but he surrounds himself with people who are or are teetering on the edge (condi, rummy, etc.)......

I know what i think is right, i am not afraid to say it.....be it gay rights (i'm all for civil unions but not mairrage), abortion (only if the mother's life is in immediate danger), and welfare (always wrong unless you are ligitimately disabled and have no recovery/employment outlook).....i think that makes me pretty centrist.....i try to listen to both sies and form my opinion based on what both sides say....but c'mon..... don't want someone left of mandela to take this country. The people have said what they wanted, andhad the deocratic party been as centrist as people say, the elecion would have been much closer.

I think in hindsight, the iraq war should have been handled differently, but still done. Rummy should have delegated more authority to more competant people, but hindsight is 20/20 and what hapened then isn't gonna change....i think bush is doing a good job personally trying to make things rihgt, but his cabinet is as incompetant as....i can't think os a simile right now....lol.....

E,bracethe centrists in both parties, gt rid of communists, neo cons, etc. But don' tblame the other party if you win an election....

Steel Butterfly....that wasa very eloquent way of putting it.....and it didn't involve alienating people who don't agree with you....

I don't tip-toe around the tulips and I'm not going to write a college paper for an internet message board. I said what I wanted to, in rant style, and if you pay attention to the details, it makes sense. I'm a poly-sci student. I know what I'm talking about. Now, you are free to disagree...but I'm sorry if you expected a politically correct statement in essay format.

I don't see how either of the parties are anywhere near moderate right now.

And as for personal ideologies, I think the conservatives are much farther from being moderate.

What would be a definition of moderate?

I don't see how either of the parties are anywhere near moderate right now.

And as for personal ideologies, I think the conservatives are much farther from being moderate.

As for your second point, i'm betting that's just bias. I'm guessing that you consider yourself liberal, and you already know that I'm conservative. We just won't agree on this one. However, if you read what I said, you'll see how I gave proof to back up my point of view...

...and for your first point...you're probably just looking at the wrong people. Extremists always get the TV and Radio time. No one wants to hear a moderate rant.

What would be a definition of moderate?

Main Entry: 1mod·er·ate
Pronunciation: 'mä-d(&-)r&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin moderatus, from past participle of moderare to moderate; akin to Latin modus measure
1 a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker> b : CALM, TEMPERATE
2 a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b : having average or less than average quality : MEDIOCRE
3 : professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4 : limited in scope or effect
5 : not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6 of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma
- mod·er·ate·ly adverb
- mod·er·ate·ness noun

So, from these we get #3 that says a moderate is a "non-extremist" and #1 that says a moderate "observes reasonable limits." Also, interestingly enough, we get #4 called a moderate one who is "limited in scope or effect" and #2 calling them "average or less than average quality."

I haven't seen much difference between Republicans and Democrats when they are in a position of Federal power. Each wants to pass "sweeping reforms" which translate as "sweeping power grabs".

If it's the Democrats, they want to impose a sweeping, non-moderate vision of their world on the US. Same same the Republicans with a different vision.

How is one more moderate than the other?

As for your second point, i'm betting that's just bias. I'm guessing that you consider yourself liberal, and you already know that I'm conservative. We just won't agree on this one. However, if you read what I said, you'll see how I gave proof to back up my point of view...

...and for your first point...you're probably just looking at the wrong people. Extremists always get the TV and Radio time. No one wants to hear a moderate rant.

It seems that, in this country at least, if you assume liberal views on anything, you are labeled as a liberal.

To be conservative, you almost always have to be all of these:

1. Anti-abortion
2. Against gay marriage
3. Christian
4. Pro Capital punishment
5. For lower taxes
6. Against affirmative action

While if you aren't one or two of those you get labeled a liberal. If you split on those issues you are considered to be very liberal, so I would say a moderate on the issues would be considered liberal.

And as for the parties, how can you consider the Republican party to be moderate? I have never seen such a large group of people with extreme views. There are a great deal of fundamental liberals, but rarely do you find a liberal who is as hard line as a conservative.

I am against gay rights.......there's nothing wrong with America being the strongest nation on the planet. If that means that we are "world police" then so be it.

Are the Republicans "too far right?" Hell no. The Democrats are most definately the party which is further from the center.
How can you be against gay rights? How would you feel if someone was against heterosexual rights? Wouldn't you think they were a total idiot? I would!

Being in favour of a big-spending neocon policy is contradictory to being a fiscal conservative. Sure they'll cut taxes now, but if they continue to spend, you will have to pay many more taxes in future years.

Democrats are centre-right, Republicans are far-right. The best example is Barry Goldwater. In 1964, he was regarded as a far-right conservative. By the 1990s, Republicans in general had moved so far right that Goldwater was considered to be on the left wing of the party!

If you look at Republican and Democrat policies, the difference is clear. Democrat policies are pretty average, several degrees to the right of say, Canada. Republican policies, on the other hand, are the most right-wing in the whole developed world. Ban gay rights, abortion, dominate the world, theocracy, repeal the 20th century's progressive economic policies, abolish minimum wage and the environment.... you consider these to be centrist???

In America now, the far right wins elections. Centrists lose.

How can you be against gay rights? How would you feel if someone was against heterosexual rights? Wouldn't you think they were a total idiot? I would!


So how is gay marriage working out for you in ireland?

Er, hate to interrupt you conversation, but the original poll has me puzzled. Doesn't the pollster realize that the Republican Party is already split into factions, four major ones and a fairly hefty number of minor ones?

I haven't seen much difference between Republicans and Democrats when they are in a position of Federal power. Each wants to pass "sweeping reforms" which translate as "sweeping power grabs".

If it's the Democrats, they want to impose a sweeping, non-moderate vision of their world on the US. Same same the Republicans with a different vision.

How is one more moderate than the other?

I only commented on the Republican party in my last post (I'm biased, oh well), but I agree that neither party is moderate. They have turned the government into a business, and the only way that they can insure future cash flows is to increase their power inside and outside the government. So by extension they increase the power of the government.

Next President....Arnie

US BORN ONLY Rule change to be put through re-formed supreme court Nov 2006

Er, hate to interrupt you conversation, but the original poll has me puzzled. Doesn't the pollster realize that the Republican Party is already split into factions, four major ones and a fairly hefty number of minor ones?

But they all vote for the same candidates, once the Log Cabin Republicans nominate their own candidates in the general election, I will call them a separate faction.

It seems that, in this country at least, if you assume liberal views on anything, you are labeled as a liberal.

To be conservative, you almost always have to be all of these:

1. Anti-abortion
2. Against gay marriage
3. Christian
4. Pro Capital punishment
5. For lower taxes
6. Against affirmative action

While if you aren't one or two of those you get labeled a liberal. If you split on those issues you are considered to be very liberal, so I would say a moderate on the issues would be considered liberal.

And as for the parties, how can you consider the Republican party to be moderate? I have never seen such a large group of people with extreme views. There are a great deal of fundamental liberals, but rarely do you find a liberal who is as hard line as a conservative.

Well, I always thought that a traditional Democrat was for (and by for, I mean mandatory and sweeping)

1. Universal Federal health care
2. Redistribution of wealth through taxes and welfare; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
3. Elimination of private ownership of all weapons; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
4. Suppression of religion - it isn't good enough to not sponsor it, you have to stamp it out
5. Sexual education in schools beyond the biology - you have to encourage people to try other lifestyles and no one may opt out
6. Equality is not equality of opportunity. It must be measured by equality of outcome. Therefore, if we aren't getting enough lawyers passing the bar of a certain minority, instead of fixing any other problem, we have to lower the standard to get more of them to pass.

As far as Republicans go, I have the following:

1. Pro-choice
2. Against government licensing of marriage
3. Christian
4. Pro Capital punishment
5. For lower taxes
6. Against affirmative action

Gay rights I'm for. They can get married if they can find a religion that supports it (Unitarian springs to mind). But I don't think it's necessary to do more than mention the fact that they exist and are a normal variant of humans in the sex ed class. We don't really have to bring one in like a science fair experiment and have him exhibit stereotypical behavior and encourage the kids to be gay (as happened in a local school). At least our school system allows people to opt out, which I believe is a MODERATE policy.

Personally, I don't believe either party is interested in moderation if they get power. They want to push their agendas as far and fast as they can.

I also see that in the future, Democrats are not going to see fundamentalist Christians as anything but the Enemy, and will treat them as such when they get back in power.

It seems that, in this country at least, if you assume liberal views on anything, you are labeled as a liberal.

To be conservative, you almost always have to be all of these:

1. Anti-abortion
2. Against gay marriage
3. Christian
4. Pro Capital punishment
5. For lower taxes
6. Against affirmative action

While if you aren't one or two of those you get labeled a liberal. If you split on those issues you are considered to be very liberal, so I would say a moderate on the issues would be considered liberal.

And as for the parties, how can you consider the Republican party to be moderate? I have never seen such a large group of people with extreme views. There are a great deal of fundamental liberals, but rarely do you find a liberal who is as hard line as a conservative.

Is Arnold labeled a liberal? Nah...don't think so. Am I labeled a liberal for not being Christian (Granted I was born that way but still...I'm agnostic...)? Nope. A political moderate is one who is not extreme on any issue. They're aren't really "against" or "for" any issue very strongly, and if they are, they often comflict with both parties. (ie. anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-gun, and christian...definately a common person who doesn't like death and loves god) Moderates often seek "solutions" in the "middle"...hense the term centrist.

How do I consider the Republican party to be moderate? Well lets see...I know I said it somewhere...

Are the Republicans "too far right?" Hell no. The Democrats are most definately the party which is further from the center. Look who they chose as their leader in the election. Look at the results of the election. It is the centrists which win elections, and more turned out than ever for Mr. Bush. Obviously Kerry was too left for America...just not for Boston.

AHAH! There it is! The democrats chose the man who was rated the most liberal of all senators for their nomination. Surely they could have been a little less extreme considering the 40 some to chose from...and that's merely the senate. Clinton was a lot closer to the center...and look what it got him...two victories.

Because of the democrat's horrible choice, the average american, who is a moderate, got fired up against them. Kerry insulted religion with his views and stances. Now how many people do you think are Christian in this country, ahem? It looks like he insulted everyone in the south and in the west as well. What happened is that a lot of people who don't normally vote voted because they were afraid of Kerry, the man that the democrats embraced.

This, my friend, makes the donkeys the party that as a whole and on average is farther from the center than the GOP. In addition, just because views that you see are different than your's...does not make them any more extreme than your's. The fact that you personally have never seen such a large amount of people with extreme views is immaterial. How old are you? 20 max?

Regardless, those were not meant to be cracks on you. I'm supporting my opinion with evidence, while you're supporting your's with your personal observations. There are not a huge number of people carrying bibles all of a sudden that have risen up in this country. No, they have always been here. If anything, there are less.

But they all vote for the same candidates, once the Log Cabin Republicans nominate their own candidates in the general election, I will call them a separate faction.Well then I certainly go for another split, and a creation of a new party. It's been almost 11/2 decades since a group of Republicans spilt off, so they're past due. I suspect it'll be the neo-cons this time, probably for the 2012 election, but that's too far off to make accurate projections. One of the problems with being the party which takes pretty much everyone is that you cannot satisfy all of them.


***edit: I didn't see you list of things which qualify one as liberal post. Funny, but my experience with the Republican party (as opposed to conservatives) is that belief in any one of those (or some others) qualifies one as a member. Conversely in order to be Democrat (as opposed to a liberal) one must believe in a majority of the liberal beliefs. It may have to do with regional differences, perhaps in areas where conservatives are a guarenteed minority they can afford more ideological purity.

How can you be against gay rights? How would you feel if someone was against heterosexual rights? Wouldn't you think they were a total idiot? I would!

No. The person who judged one's intellectual state on their political views would be the idiot. (ie. you) I'm not trying to start a flame war here, or a discussion on gay rights...both of which you seem to be dying for.

If someone was against heterosexual rights...than that would be their viewpoint. What I thought of their viewpoint wouldn't matter to them, and I can't say that I'd think they were any less intelligence for thinking that way. Mis-informed perhaps...different maybe...but not stupid.

Personally, I don't believe either party is interested in moderation if they get power. They want to push their agendas as far and fast as they can.

I also see that in the future, Democrats are not going to see fundamentalist Christians as anything but the Enemy, and will treat them as such when they get back in power.

Of course neither party is interested in moderation. One pushed the nation one way, the other pushes it back in the opposite direction. It's the nature of politics. It's happened in every nation and it continues to happen in every nation.

Your second paragraph in that quote is the problem. Why the hell would they see them as the enemy? It's the whole red state vs. blue state thing. A bunch of people with their political panties stuck up their asses forgetting that at the end of the day we're all Americans...and that's what matters.

I only commented on the Republican party in my last post (I'm biased, oh well), but I agree that neither party is moderate. They have turned the government into a business, and the only way that they can insure future cash flows is to increase their power inside and outside the government. So by extension they increase the power of the government.

Tell me that you're not suggesting that everything isn't about money and that the government making money is a bad thing?

Although there seem to be plenty of Christians who just don't want to hear what a Democrat might have to say, especially about a core belief, I hear a lot of venomous ad hominem flame coming from a lot of Democrats about Christians.

So I don't think that there's every going to be any attempt in the future by Democrats to woo them back. By the statements I've read on a few of the threads here, Jimmy Carter, as a born-again Christian, would be booed off the stage by most of the Democrats here. He'd be lucky not to be tarred and feathered by the crowd.

Although there seem to be plenty of Christians who just don't want to hear what a Democrat might have to say, especially about a core belief, I hear a lot of venomous ad hominem flame coming from a lot of Democrats about Christians.

So I don't think that there's every going to be any attempt in the future by Democrats to woo them back. By the statements I've read on a few of the threads here, Jimmy Carter, as a born-again Christian, would be booed off the stage by most of the Democrats here. He'd be lucky not to be tarred and feathered by the crowd.

Oh don't think that the liberal idiots (not idiots because they are liberal, but idiots who are liberal) here make up the majority of america. This site is festering with anti-christian far-left nonsense. The real world is far different.

Is Arnold labeled a liberal? Nah...don't think so. Am I labeled a liberal for not being Christian (Granted I was born that way but still...I'm agnostic...)? Nope. A political moderate is one who is not extreme on any issue. They're aren't really "against" or "for" any issue very strongly, and if they are, they often comflict with both parties. (ie. anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-gun, and christian...definately a common person who doesn't like death and loves god) Moderates often seek "solutions" in the "middle"...hense the term centrist.

Take my example then, I am for gun registration, but against bans, I think gay marriage should be legalized as a constitutional right, I am pro-abortion but would never recommend it to anyone, I am also agnostic, I believe that the death penalty is wrong for the fact that there is a possibility that someone innocent might be killed. What am I?

How do I consider the Republican party to be moderate? Well lets see...I know I said it somewhere...

You used George Bush as your shining example of conservative moderation? I will say that I disagree with that, but I already said I don't want to debate particular politicians, and leave it at that.

AHAH! There it is! The democrats chose the man who was rated the most liberal of all senators for their nomination. Surely they could have been a little less extreme considering the 40 some to chose from...and that's merely the senate. Clinton was a lot closer to the center...and look what it got him...two victories.

Because of the democrat's horrible choice, the average american, who is a moderate, got fired up against them. Kerry insulted religion with his views and stances. Now how many people do you think are Christian in this country, ahem? It looks like he insulted everyone in the south and in the west as well. What happened is that a lot of people who don't normally vote voted because they were afraid of Kerry, the man that the democrats embraced.


This isn't about the failures of the democratic party.

This, my friend, makes the donkeys the party that as a whole and on average is farther from the center than the GOP. In addition, just because views that you see are different than your's...does not make them any more extreme than your's. The fact that you personally have never seen such a large amount of people with extreme views is immaterial. How old are you? 20 max?

I'm 22, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that if you compare the policies of the Republican party to those of any other party in the western world, they are extremely fundamental. You assume that I just base it on my own personal leanings.

Regardless, those were not meant to be cracks on you. I'm supporting my opinion with evidence, while you're supporting your's with your personal observations.

Where is all of this empirical evidence that you are using? So far in this post you have bashed Kerry and called my judgement into question. You were right about Arnold being a moderate, but he was elected in California, and would have never been elected in any red state.

There are not a huge number of people carrying bibles all of a sudden that have risen up in this country. No, they have always been here. If anything, there are less.

There are a great deal of people in this nation, however, that decided to make their political decisions based on their religion. The only people in the world that have more religion in their politics are the ones that are attacking us.

i think they will keep becoming more religous, until people stop voting for them, then they will stop taking it to the radical side in order to get votes.

There are a great deal of people in this nation, however, that decided to make their political decisions based on their religion. The only people in the world that have more religion in their politics are the ones that are attacking us.

I think that a lot of Americans took 9-11 as a religious war declaration, and are responding in kind. I've heard messages in different churches about how this IS a religious war - and a war that will not end until one or the other is utterly destroyed.

Not sure I agree with the predicted results, but I do agree that it's the attackers who laid down the religion card. And the US is playing the same card back.

The problem with religious fundamentalists in a war is that if you're in the middle, you're not safe from either. If you don't pick a side, you may get labeled with one, and end up just as dead.

You used George Bush as your shining example of conservative moderation? I will say that I disagree with that, but I already said I don't want to debate particular politicians, and leave it at that.

Nonsense...Bush is far from moderate...but he's closer than kerry...and that was my point.

Take my example then, I am for gun registration, but against bans, I think gay marriage should be legalized as a constitutional right, I am pro-abortion but would never recommend it to anyone, I am also agnostic, I believe that the death penalty is wrong for the fact that there is a possibility that someone innocent might be killed. What am I?

Left leaning moderate because of your view gay marriage and you're backing of it using the constitution. Other than that you at least seem fairly centrist I guess.

This isn't about the failures of the democratic party.

So many comments...so little time...lol

I'm 22, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that if you compare the policies of the Republican party to those of any other party in the western world, they are extremely fundamental. You assume that I just base it on my own personal leanings.

To a moderate, both sides look extreme. To a left-leaning moderate, the right seems more extreme. Also, who are we comparing the Republican party to? Canada? France? Of course it seems more fundamental than them.

Where is all of this empirical evidence that you are using? So far in this post you have bashed Kerry and called my judgement into question. You were right about Arnold being a moderate, but he was elected in California, and would have never been elected in any red state.

I said evidence, not facts (just to be clear), and I used the election as such. Trust me, I have no bashed Kerry. I said why he lost. It's been documented. Don't ask me for links, I'm not going to waste my time. Even most democrats say he lost because of his far left stances. Also, Arnold could most definately be elected in a red state because of his popularity. If he was allowed to, I guarrentee you he'd win the presidency.

There are a great deal of people in this nation, however, that decided to make their political decisions based on their religion. The only people in the world that have more religion in their politics are the ones that are attacking us.

1. That is their right.

2. Are you trying to compare us to Islamic fundamentalists? Other than that I see no point to that statement.

bah, who cares?
just vote libertarian
www.lp.org

I think that a lot of Americans took 9-11 as a religious war declaration, and are responding in kind. I've heard messages in different churches about how this IS a religious war - and a war that will not end until one or the other is utterly destroyed.

Not sure I agree with the predicted results, but I do agree that it's the attackers who laid down the religion card. And the US is playing the same card back.

The problem with religious fundamentalists in a war is that if you're in the middle, you're not safe from either. If you don't pick a side, you may get labeled with one, and end up just as dead.

Religious war? That's rather frightening. Don't think I've heard that one yet. (my parents are roman catholic...funny being that I'm from russia...)

I'm not sure if the attackers really did lay down the religious card though. They called us the great satan and yada yada yada and said that god told them to go to war with us. Well isn't that grand? If anything, that just further showed how religious people were a bunch of "wackos." The percentage of people in churches is going down, not up.

As for another crusade...that's scary...but it's not a reality...yet at least...

bah, who cares?
just vote libertarian
www.lp.org

Sorry...I'm authoritarian. People need controlled. Not this argument. Contribute to the argument or post your spam elsewhere.

i think they will keep becoming more religous, until people stop voting for them, then they will stop taking it to the radical side in order to get votes.

What do you base your predictions on?

I think that a lot of Americans took 9-11 as a religious war declaration, and are responding in kind. I've heard messages in different churches about how this IS a religious war - and a war that will not end until one or the other is utterly destroyed.

Not sure I agree with the predicted results, but I do agree that it's the attackers who laid down the religion card. And the US is playing the same card back.

The problem with religious fundamentalists in a war is that if you're in the middle, you're not safe from either. If you don't pick a side, you may get labeled with one, and end up just as dead.

Actually, most terrorist demands involve political concessions, such as aid to Israel, and our support to oil magnates and dictators. It was our government more than anything that wanted this to be construed as a religious war, since most Americans are christians and most Middle Easterners are muslim.

You are correct that the middle is unsafe from either side in a religious war. I would say our soldiers are in the middle right now and they are in horrible danger. We should have done our best to not escalate this and remove the religious connotation from it, but since religion is Bush's trump card, he played it for all it is worth.

What do you base your predictions on?
The fact that the republican party appeals to religous voters who, in these times of war, are constantly trying to control peoples individuals lives out of fear and paranoia, so the republican party will continue to try their hardest to appeal to them, but eventually, we will get out of these rough times and all people wont be so fearful, and more accepting of other people. so the republican party will try to appeal to these people in order to get votes.

Actually, most terrorist demands involve political concessions, such as aid to Israel, and our support to oil magnates and dictators. It was our government more than anything that wanted this to be construed as a religious war, since most Americans are christians and most Middle Easterners are muslim.

You are correct that the middle is unsafe from either side in a religious war. I would say our soldiers are in the middle right now and they are in horrible danger. We should have done our best to not escalate this and remove the religious connotation from it, but since religion is Bush's trump card, he played it for all it is worth.

The original diatribes from the group that attacked the WTC had no mention of anything except the US violation of the Muslim Holy Lands. Nothing else. And they took pains to have various religious leaders (including the blind guy in New Jersey) cast this as a religious attack.

Been to any Pentecostal churches lately? Or Baptist? Pull the pastor aside after services and ask him if he thinks it's a religious war. I know the answer you'll get. And it's something that filters into the messages the congregations get from time to time.

The people in the "middle" in the US are the people without an identifiable religion. The soldiers seem to pray a lot (did you see that video of Marines praying together before going into Fallujah?). Ready made converts if they didn't believe already. NPR had a story on how virtually all of our military intelligence translators and CIA translators are Mormons.

Any people from the "middle" working those jobs? Nope.

The fact that the republican party appeals to religous voters who, in these times of war, are constantly trying to control peoples individuals lives out of fear and paranoia, so the republican party will continue to try their hardest to appeal to them, but eventually, we will get out of these rough times and all people wont be so fearful, and more accepting of other people. so the republican party will try to appeal to these people in order to get votes.

Religious voters are far from the only people the Republican party appeals to.

Also, your conspiracy is flawed. Religious people trying to control others out of fear in this time of war? Religious people do that anyhow. "Hell", anyone?

All parties try to appeal to people, not just the republicans. Your last sentence is obvious.

Been to any Pentecostal churches lately? Or Baptist? Pull the pastor aside after services and ask him if he thinks it's a religious war. I know the answer you'll get. And it's something that filters into the messages the congregations get from time to time.

Bah...those religions are notorious firebrands. That's nothing new.

Religious voters are far from the only people the Republican party appeals to.

Also, your conspiracy is flawed. Religious people trying to control others out of fear in this time of war? Religious people do that anyhow. "Hell", anyone?

All parties try to appeal to people, not just the republicans. Your last sentence is obvious.
yea but times of war makes them believe theres some sort of justification, like trying to protect the interest of the u.s. people in these turbulent times. 9/11 has made christians people almost like they need to have a christian government in order for them to be protected or something.

Sorry...I'm authoritarian. People need controlled..
you make me sick

Nonsense...Bush is far from moderate...but he's closer than kerry...and that was my point.

I though Kerry was the moderate democrat in the primaries, apparently I was wrong.

[QUOTE]So many comments...so little time...lol

Yes, that is why I don't want to get into it.

To a moderate, both sides look extreme. To a left-leaning moderate, the right seems more extreme. Also, who are we comparing the Republican party to? Canada? France? Of course it seems more fundamental than them.

The fact that my own bias would cause the other side to look extreme is the exact reason why I compared the Republican party to the parties of other nations.

I said evidence, not facts (just to be clear), and I used the election as such. Trust me, I have no bashed Kerry. I said why he lost. It's been documented. Don't ask me for links, I'm not going to waste my time. Even most democrats say he lost because of his far left stances. Also, Arnold could most definately be elected in a red state because of his popularity. If he was allowed to, I guarrentee you he'd win the presidency.

He wouldn't have been elected 4 years ago in those states. And would hardline conservatives actually support a foreign born president?

1. That is their right.

2. Are you trying to compare us to Islamic fundamentalists? Other than that I see no point to that statement.

I am not comparing you to Islamic fundamentalists, I am comparing the religious right to islamic fundamentalists. They both confuse religion with politics and the Islamic fundamentalists show how dangerous that can be.

Well, I always thought that a traditional Democrat was for (and by for, I mean mandatory and sweeping)

1. Universal Federal health care
2. Redistribution of wealth through taxes and welfare; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
3. Elimination of private ownership of all weapons; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
4. Suppression of religion - it isn't good enough to not sponsor it, you have to stamp it out
5. Sexual education in schools beyond the biology - you have to encourage people to try other lifestyles and no one may opt out
6. Equality is not equality of opportunity. It must be measured by equality of outcome. Therefore, if we aren't getting enough lawyers passing the bar of a certain minority, instead of fixing any other problem, we have to lower the standard to get more of them to pass.

As far as Republicans go, I have the following:

1. Pro-choice
2. Against government licensing of marriage
3. Christian
4. Pro Capital punishment
5. For lower taxes
6. Against affirmative action

Gay rights I'm for. They can get married if they can find a religion that supports it (Unitarian springs to mind). But I don't think it's necessary to do more than mention the fact that they exist and are a normal variant of humans in the sex ed class. We don't really have to bring one in like a science fair experiment and have him exhibit stereotypical behavior and encourage the kids to be gay (as happened in a local school). At least our school system allows people to opt out, which I believe is a MODERATE policy.

Personally, I don't believe either party is interested in moderation if they get power. They want to push their agendas as far and fast as they can.

I also see that in the future, Democrats are not going to see fundamentalist Christians as anything but the Enemy, and will treat them as such when they get back in power.

Kerry is not a Traditional democrat so not that left according to you:

1. Universal Federal health care
2. Redistribution of wealth through taxes and welfare; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
3. Elimination of private ownership of all weapons; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
4. Suppression of religion - it isn't good enough to not sponsor it, you have to stamp it out
5. Sexual education in schools beyond the biology - you have to encourage people to try other lifestyles and no one may opt out
6. Equality is not equality of opportunity. It must be measured by equality of outcome. Therefore, if we aren't getting enough lawyers passing the bar of a certain minority, instead of fixing any other problem, we have to lower the standard to get more of them to pass.


1. He didn't want a Universal Federal Healthcare. He wanted Senate health care unless you think the senate is too communist for you?

2. Redistribution of wealth through taxes and welfare: Um no, welfare doesn't redistribute wealth...you still poor.
And taxes are the way we pay for stuff like the military. So again doesn't work.

3. Elimination of private ownership of all weapons? Um no, just registration so we can know you know how to follow the law like a drivers license. No one ever said to ban all guns.

4. Kerry doesn't want to suppress religion because he isn't a atheist. So guess he wasn't a lefty.

5. Kerry wasn't about sexual education beyond biology. Again Kerry is not very lefty.

6. Noithing to do with him..

So by your examples Kerry was either center or rightwing.

I'm a democrat but like Kerry we aren't any of those either. How many democrats even fit that bill?

Kerry is not a Traditional democrat so not that left according to you:

1. He didn't want a Universal Federal Healthcare. He wanted Senate health care unless you think the senate is too communist for you?

2. Redistribution of wealth through taxes and welfare: Um no, welfare doesn't redistribute wealth...you still poor.
And taxes are the way we pay for stuff like the military. So again doesn't work.

3. Elimination of private ownership of all weapons? Um no, just registration so we can know you know how to follow the law like a drivers license. No one ever said to ban all guns.

4. Kerry doesn't want to suppress religion because he isn't a atheist. So guess he wasn't a lefty.

5. Kerry wasn't about sexual education beyond biology. Again Kerry is not very lefty.

6. Noithing to do with him..

So by your examples Kerry was either center or rightwing.

I'm a democrat but like Kerry we aren't any of those either. How many democrats even fit that bill?

Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary fit the bill. Kerry was a centrist Democrat.

I'm not sure why anyone would think it would disolve. You realize that it has the majority in every single branch of the federal government, right?

And Kerry was left of Ted Kennedy. The man is about as far out as you can get. Hillary is actually far to the left, despite a very moderate husband.

Lieberman is the perfect candidate. He's the only one I would really consider voting for.

bah, who cares?
just vote libertarian
www.lp.org

And let your vote be wasted

I'm not sure why anyone would think it would disolve. You realize that it has the majority in every single branch of the federal government, right?

And Kerry was left of Ted Kennedy. The man is about as far out as you can get. Hillary is actually far to the left, despite a very moderate husband.

Lieberman is the perfect candidate. He's the only one I would really consider voting for.

I'm waiting for a lieberman ticket....with possible keusenich as his runningmate...

But i would vote for them only if i didn't like the rep ticket (like if it was rumsfeld and condie or something rediculous like that) I'm thinkning there may be a guliani running...if he doesn't go senate, he will go for presidency.....idk if that would be good, but i also don't exaclt know id it would be bad....another possible in McCain, but i really don't think he is steadfast enough (just like i don't think kerry was steadfast enough)

He didn't want a Universal Federal Healthcare. He wanted Senate health care unless you think the senate is too communist for you?
Bastard, do you know what you're talking about?

He said "I have a plan to cover all Americans. We're going to make it affordable and accessible. We're going to let everybody buy into the same health-care plan senators and congressmen give themselves."

Your comment that he wanted "Senate health care" dosen't really make sense. He wanted everyone in the US to have the same healthcare that senators do, managed by the federal government.

A haven for social conservatives. Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter will all become inependents.

And let your vote be wasted

Meh, better that I waste it on someone I agree with than on George W. Bush or John Kerry, both of whom I despise, right?

Anyway, I don't see how someone can claim that the Republicans are more moderate than the Democrats, or vice versa, when the center is defined by the positions of the two major parties. If the Republicans or the Democrats shift, the center shifts too.

I'm waiting for a lieberman ticket....with possible keusenich as his runningmate...

Never gonna happen. Lieberman is a centrist Democrat (as am I) and a vocal member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. Kucinich is on the farthest left reaches of the party. Kucinich is so far left that he'll never be on a presidential ticket, president or veep.

I'm waiting for a lieberman ticket....with possible keusenich as his runningmate...

But i would vote for them only if i didn't like the rep ticket (like if it was rumsfeld and condie or something rediculous like that) I'm thinkning there may be a guliani running...if he doesn't go senate, he will go for presidency.....idk if that would be good, but i also don't exaclt know id it would be bad....another possible in McCain, but i really don't think he is steadfast enough (just like i don't think kerry was steadfast enough)

Giuliani won't be relevant four years from now, and McCain will probably be too old.

Anyway, I don't see how someone can claim that the Republicans are more moderate than the Democrats, or vice versa, when the center is defined by the positions of the two major parties. If the Republicans or the Democrats shift, the center shifts too.
One party may not me more centrist, but they can have more moderate views.

And let your vote be wasted
yea, voting for corrupt political parties are much more useful.

Bastard, do you know what you're talking about?

He said "I have a plan to cover all Americans. We're going to make it affordable and accessible. We're going to let everybody buy into the same health-care plan senators and congressmen give themselves."

Your comment that he wanted "Senate health care" dosen't really make sense. He wanted everyone in the US to have the same healthcare that senators do, managed by the federal government.
Difference in phrasology, when most people use Universal Federal Healthcare they mean either a system where all healthcare is provided by the Federal Government or a single payer system where the Federal government is the payer, not a system which allows people to opt in to a Insurance Plan managed and run by the Federal Government as an alternative to or in addition to Private Insurance Plans. Appologies for the capital letters, but the phrases are distinct phrases.

Fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism aren't mutally exclusive. Remember, neoconservatism is mostly a foreign policy belief.
I thiink that the party is moving to combining the two. As we saw this year, domestic discretionary spending rose by about 1%. Next year, it might actually decrease. The Homeland Security budget will still explode, but I expect the Defense Budget to rest around where it is. Bush himself may not practice more fiscal constraint, but the rest of the party certainly will, and that will carry one beyond 2009.

Fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism aren't mutally exclusive. Remember, neoconservatism is mostly a foreign policy belief.
I thiink that the party is moving to combining the two. As we saw this year, domestic discretionary spending rose by about 1%. Next year, it might actually decrease. The Homeland Security budget will still explode, but I expect the Defense Budget to rest around where it is. Bush himself may not practice more fiscal constraint, but the rest of the party certainly will, and that will carry one beyond 2009.

The neocons are looking for an overhauling of the military at very expensive costs, and a very strong global position. That goes at odds with more traditional conservatives like Pat Buchanon.

The neocons are looking for an overhauling of the military at very expensive costs, and a very strong global position. That goes at odds with more traditional conservatives like Pat Buchanon.
Still, neocons aren't particularly happy to fund domestic programs like hell. In any event, I see the current military spending only partially as a result of Bush. Quite a bit of it has to do with being in the GWOT. Even so, from a governmental standpoint, I find investing in the military to be a good investment, especially when used in this manner. But anyhow, I think that things will start to quiet down by 2006. That will be when Iraq will have a pernament government in place, and by then, security forces will be better trained, relieving US troops. In addition, expensive operations should be less frequent. I also see Afghanistan quieting down. The Taliban can't continue forever. Anyhow, once that happens, I think military spending should stabilize.

It seems that, in this country at least, if you assume liberal views on anything, you are labeled as a liberal.

To be conservative, you almost always have to be all of these:

1. Anti-abortion
2. Against gay marriage
3. Christian
4. Pro Capital punishment
5. For lower taxes
6. Against affirmative action




Ok, So are you saying EVERY conservative is Christian? I certainly am no Christian.

you make me sick

*smiles*

Why thank you

Still, neocons aren't particularly happy to fund domestic programs like hell. In any event, I see the current military spending only partially as a result of Bush. Quite a bit of it has to do with being in the GWOT. Even so, from a governmental standpoint, I find investing in the military to be a good investment, especially when used in this manner. But anyhow, I think that things will start to quiet down by 2006. That will be when Iraq will have a pernament government in place, and by then, security forces will be better trained, relieving US troops. In addition, expensive operations should be less frequent. I also see Afghanistan quieting down. The Taliban can't continue forever. Anyhow, once that happens, I think military spending should stabilize.

The "GWOT" is more of an excuse for the revamping of the military than anything else. Terrorism is a problem but no more than it was in the 90's. The thing is that the current Neocon movement is pushing for a restructuring of the military so that it can take on unconventional wars on multiple fronts. To do this you must have active ground commitments in which to test new equipment, weapons, and tactics, thus you need a "War on Terror."

My mother, conservative to the hilt, admitted to me that she thinks the war was a mistake. She used the phrase, "Heads should roll," in reference to Donald Rumsfeld. Although, I must admit that she is well informed and is somewhat open minded, this is a woman who listened to Rush religiously, attends church weekly, and would probably take a bullet for Reagan's lifeless corpse.

Of course this relevation comes a month after the election, and about 2 years after I told her it would be a mistake, but no "I told you so"s, I'm having my own private celebration.

So my question is this: Has anybody else noticed a shift like this? Do you think the republican party is going to be forced to revert back to a fiscally conservative, less global stance? Do you think the party is already too far right and will split? Or do you think that no change is forthcoming?

Also, try and leave particular politicians out of this debate, try and keep it about ideologies.
It's curious, because according to recent opinion polls, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any second term president since they started taking approval ratings--and it ain't even close. Everyone else was near or above 60% approval, and Bush still hovers in the 49-50% range. It seems that voters were willing to disconnect Bush from Iraq, which is down around 40% approval in some polls.

The Republicans are certainly governing like they're moving farther to the right socially, but I think in the end that's going to backfire on them. I'm reading an interesting article in the Nation right now, written by David Sirota, that is smacking around the DLC pretty good, but the overall thrust of the piece shows that despite their voting patterns, the country really is more progressive than it seems. We just need to give them people to vote for.

It's curious, because according to recent opinion polls, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any second term president since they started taking approval ratings--and it ain't even close. Everyone else was near or above 60% approval, and Bush still hovers in the 49-50% range. It seems that voters were willing to disconnect Bush from Iraq, which is down around 40% approval in some polls.

The Republicans are certainly governing like they're moving farther to the right socially, but I think in the end that's going to backfire on them. I'm reading an interesting article in the Nation right now, written by David Sirota, that is smacking around the DLC pretty good, but the overall thrust of the piece shows that despite their voting patterns, the country really is more progressive than it seems. We just need to give them people to vote for.

Yeah, Bush hasn't given people too many reasons to like him. But he did one hell of a job convincing them that they shouldn't like John Kerry. The beauty of two party political system, if you aren't very good, just make the other guy look worse.

Yeah, Bush hasn't given people too many reasons to like him. But he did one hell of a job convincing them that they shouldn't like John Kerry. The beauty of two party political system, if you aren't very good, just make the other guy look worse.
Which is the short reason why Karl Rove should have been Time's person of the year.

I'm reading an interesting article in the Nation right now, written by David Sirota, that is smacking around the DLC pretty good
Republicans should be THRILLED that the DLC is gaining support, rather than far-left congressmen like Dennis Kucininch. Man, third-way politics is what keep me alive! Go liberal centrism!

Interesting question. I see the party becoming progressively more religious/fundamental in its nature. I see the country, particularly if terrorist acts continue and the economy continues to struggle, becoming persecutorial of those who do not fall in lock step with the majority. It will take time, mind you, but I believe it will gradually head that direction.

As of this point in time, it is still the lesser of 2 evils when compared to the Kerry/Dems.

So how is gay marriage working out for you in ireland?
We don't yet have it, which puts us behind Massachusetts. But our population has a generally more positive attitude to it, which puts us ahead of the other 49 states.

It's only a short matter of time. The government has even said that it's a good idea.

Well, I always thought that a traditional Democrat was for (and by for, I mean mandatory and sweeping)

1. Universal Federal health care
2. Redistribution of wealth through taxes and welfare; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
3. Elimination of private ownership of all weapons; exceptions will be made for friends of the party
4. Suppression of religion - it isn't good enough to not sponsor it, you have to stamp it out
5. Sexual education in schools beyond the biology - you have to encourage people to try other lifestyles and no one may opt out
6. Equality is not equality of opportunity. It must be measured by equality of outcome. Therefore, if we aren't getting enough lawyers passing the bar of a certain minority, instead of fixing any other problem, we have to lower the standard to get more of them to pass.

I assume this is some sort of satire and not serious. If you are serious, well I call that "willful ignorance".

Kerry insulted religion with his views and stances.
By refusing to knock down separation of church and state?

I consider Clinton to be conservative, because he acted like Reagan.

If someone was against heterosexual rights...than that would be their viewpoint. What I thought of their viewpoint wouldn't matter to them, and I can't say that I'd think they were any less intelligence for thinking that way. Mis-informed perhaps...different maybe...but not stupid.
I'm sure it would matter to you if they were successfully legislating their views. I'm sure you would pretty fired up about it then.

The reason I am so hostile to anti-gay rights people is because they have never given me a solid, secular argument for their case. I see their position as one of bigotry and hatred.

I think that a lot of Americans took 9-11 as a religious war declaration, and are responding in kind.
A majority? I doubt it.

To a moderate, both sides look extreme. To a left-leaning moderate, the right seems more extreme. Also, who are we comparing the Republican party to? Canada? France? Of course it seems more fundamental than them.
Why do Americans think that France is some kind of ultra-socialist state? Because of the irrelevant matter of their stance on the Iraq war? Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are more socialist then them.

Regarding the Republicans, their stances are far to the right of almost any mainstream party in any European country, including the UK. Even a very right wing party, the Tories, are to the left of them.

Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary fit the bill. Kerry was a centrist Democrat.
Hillary? As in Hillary "close all the borders" Clinton?

I'm not sure why anyone would think it would disolve. You realize that it has the majority in every single branch of the federal government, right?

And Kerry was left of Ted Kennedy. The man is about as far out as you can get. Hillary is actually far to the left, despite a very moderate husband.

As far as you can get? It scares me that John Kerry is the most liberal man in the Senate. It must be an extremely conservative place.

It also scares me that you don't know of any sort of political thought to the left of Democrats, or to the right of Republicans.

I consider Clinton to be conservative, because he acted like Reagan.

WHAT? Reagan was the ultimate fiscal conservative with some peacetime military buildup included. Clinton was a centrist Democrat who managed to balance the deficit fir the first time since 1969! How dare you compare the two? Clinton is only conservative compared to Ralph Nader!

As far as you can get? It scares me that John Kerry is the most liberal man in the Senate. It must be an extremely conservative place.

John Kerry is not the most liberal senator, not even close. He's a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. Russel Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, and Ted Kennedy are all to his left. But as a whole, the Dems in the senate are much closer to the nation's center than say, Bill Frist. Kudos to the Senate Centrist Coalition for their voting consciences.

My mother, conservative to the hilt, admitted to me that she thinks the war was a mistake. She used the phrase, "Heads should roll," in reference to Donald Rumsfeld. Although, I must admit that she is well informed and is somewhat open minded, this is a woman who listened to Rush religiously, attends church weekly, and would probably take a bullet for Reagan's lifeless corpse.

Of course this relevation comes a month after the election, and about 2 years after I told her it would be a mistake, but no "I told you so"s, I'm having my own private celebration.

So my question is this: Has anybody else noticed a shift like this? Do you think the republican party is going to be forced to revert back to a fiscally conservative, less global stance? Do you think the party is already too far right and will split? Or do you think that no change is forthcoming?

Also, try and leave particular politicians out of this debate, try and keep it about ideologies.

There will always be Neo-Cons, but I don't think there will be an overwhelming doimination of the party. I think that Neo-Cons, Paleo-Cons and Foreign Policy Centrists will all share the party, and it'll just be whoever the leader (Presidential Candidate) of the party is at that time's Foreign Policy views that will make the party appear Neo-Con, Paleo-Con or Normal.

Someone who I think would be a GREAT leader in the right direction (and the Right direction, I might add...lol) is Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

I consider Clinton to be conservative, because he acted like Reagan.

Clinton? Conservative? I seriously hope your joking.

Regarding the Republicans, their stances are far to the right of almost any mainstream party in any European country,

...and proud. :D

Steel Butterfly, that was an excellent post (think it was post #3... or thereabouts).

I was just wondering about this:

"To win, Democrats, need to... once again re-claim the religious people."

I'm not sure Democrats ever had the religious people. Certainly they have (and have had) some of them, but I would certainly not call the Dems the party of the religious individual.

If I'm not mistaken, something like (and this may be way off but the point is that there was a huge majority) 80-90 percent of white Protestants voted for Bush. I think that the Catholic vote was probably closer, but was probably also in favor of Bush, if by a much slimmer margin.

However... one group of religious people the Dems do seem to be able to count on are African-American Protestants. They are, however, vastly outnumbered by caucasian Protestants.

Of course this is based on very recent numbers... although I wouldn't imagine that there would have been an huge change over time, it is certainly possible. I simply have neither the time nor interest in searching for such info. hehe

Thoughts?

[of course Christianity isn't the only religion in this country... but of religious people in this country, probably all but a very small percentage (eg, 4-5%)would call themselves Christians]

I do hope the original Republican ideology withstands in the party's troubled times (that ideology being: less/smaller government, less gov't spending, less gov't interference in economy)

<snippetysnipsnip>

Someone who I think would be a GREAT leader in the right direction (and the Right direction, I might add...lol) is Tom Tancredo of Colorado.


Tancredo?

OMFG he is quite possibly the scariest man from this state! All he cares about is immigrant shit! You really want a president that only cares about keeping the immigrants out?

*shakes head*

[of course Christianity isn't the only religion in this country... but of religious people in this country, probably all but a very small percentage (eg, 4-5%)would call themselves Christians]

the United States of America is 78% Christian.

Tancredo?

OMFG he is quite possibly the scariest man from this state! All he cares about is immigrant sh<deleted from original post>! You really want a president that only cares about keeping the immigrants out?

*shakes head*

He doesn't want to keep legal immigrants out, he wants to keep illegal immigrants out. America is STRONGLY for strengthening our borders, from the Left to the Right. Heck, in this last election, Nader had a better immigration policy than Bush (Bush is terrible on immigration, but I'm not going to go into that here). Illegal Immigration is his main issue, and the one thing that both the parties are out of touch with America most is the illegal immigration issue.

The Democrats like illegal immigration because it gets them votes.

The Republicans like illegal immigration because of cheap labor.

We need to crack down on businesses knowingly employing illegal immigration laws, and we need to send in more support for the Border Patrol. And we DEFINATELY don't need to have water and blankets out for illegal immigrants.

Tom Tancredo is a good conservative Republican, and he is one of the greatest speakers I have ever seen. He's almost Reagan-like!

Tom Tancedo '08!

I do hope the original Republican ideology withstands in the party's troubled times (that ideology being: less/smaller government, less gov't spending, less gov't interference in economy)
went away a long time ago and certainly wont come back for decades to come
However... one group of religious people the Dems do seem to be able to count on are African-American Protestants. They are, however, vastly outnumbered by caucasian Protestants.
african americans in general
like 90% voted for kerry in 2004
Clinton? Conservative? I seriously hope your joking.
well clinton is only liberal if you believe in the death penalty for convicts and people who want to abort an unborn fetus
...and proud.
yep, jesus sure was proud of taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, destroying the enviroment, invading other countries, condeming his liberal brothers...wait jesus never did any of that? you say he was the prince of peace and loved everyone? well shoot.
WHAT? Reagan was the ultimate fiscal conservative with some peacetime military buildup included
pretty liberal definition of "some"
As far as you can get? It scares me that John Kerry is the most liberal man in the Senate. It must be an extremely conservative place.
he'd be practically conservative in any other first world nation in the world...
It also scares me that you don't know of any sort of political thought to the left of Democrats, or to the right of Republicans.
to the right of the republicans is the stalinist dictatorship mixed with satan worship all executing mothers who abort their fetuses
lets not go there

to the right of the republicans is the stalinist dictatorship mixed with satan worship all executing mothers who abort their fetuses
lets not go there

You're saying that Stalin and Satan Worshippers are conservative? Wow. Just wow. That's really sad.

You're saying that Stalin and Satan Worshippers are conservative? Wow. Just wow. That's really sad.
well maybe not the satan worshippers
but dictatorships are traditionally recognized as being in the far right of things along a one dimensional political spectrum

With the dollar sliding due to record deficit spending, oil going up, inflation going up, housing sales hitting the skids, and the Fed raising rates, the US is in for four years of pretty dismal economic news.

Add to that the splendor that is the quagmire of Iraq and quite possibly Syria in the near future. Meanwhile American corporations are offshoreing like a son of a bitch any job that can be done on a phone or a computer.

I have a feeling that the country may be somewhat weary of anyone with an elephant tag for the next thirty years after 2006.

well maybe not the satan worshippers
but dictatorships are traditionally recognized as being in the far right of things along a one dimensional political spectrum

Maybe to you. But not to me. The American Revolutionaries, who created the first nation based on Liberty (America) were definately Rightists. But the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, Chinese Communist Revolutionaries, the Viet-Cong, the Saninistas, and Castro's Revolutionaries were all Leftists, and totalitarians at that.

Maybe to you. But not to me. The American Revolutionaries, who created the first nation based on Liberty (America) were definately Rightists. But the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, Chinese Communist Revolutionaries, the Viet-Cong, the Saninistas, and Castro's Revolutionaries were all Leftists, and totalitarians at that.
"liberty" in general is a leftist idea
for 1776, the american revolutionaries and usa were the most leftist people and the leftist nation possibly ever and certainly the most "left" in existence

Maybe to you. But not to me. The American Revolutionaries, who created the first nation based on Liberty (America) were definately Rightists.
you can say they are, but they're not
it's like saying jesus worships satan...
you clearly dont know what "rightist" and "leftist" and the whole political shebang even means
but it's okay, a lot of people like you have been brainwashed by the political machine

Maybe to you. But not to me. The American Revolutionaries, who created the first nation based on Liberty (America) were definately Rightists. But the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, Chinese Communist Revolutionaries, the Viet-Cong, the Saninistas, and Castro's Revolutionaries were all Leftists, and totalitarians at that.

Yes, because it was those conservatives-the people who don't want things to change-that wanted a radical revolution against the government.

...Wait...

Yes, because it was those conservatives-the people who don't want things to change-that wanted a radical revolution against the government.

...Wait...

What is even weirder is the NRA supports the second amendment because they want to radically takeover the government if it goes against their wishes too much(become what they think is tyrany). NRA is mostly republicans which means mostly Republicans.

So conservatives seem schitzofrentic sometimes.
They both want change and don't want change to things? The very definition seems ironic.