What is the republican party's next move?

[subchaser12]

This isn't to start a fight, no republican bashing for the sake of it please. I know there are mostly level headed republicans here and I have to ask "what now". The way I see it there are much deeper issues than McCain just sucking. It looks to me that the right wing social issues are really losing traction around the country in big enough numbers to matter. Will they go back to fiscal conservative roots? I know there won't be anything for awhile as the republican will be licking their wounds for a bit. I'm not sure being the anti-Obama party is safe with his popularity nationwide. I'm stumped. Thoughts and opinions?

[SteamWake]

Well basically conservative Republicans will just have to sit in the corner and wimper for the next 4 years.

The 'liberal' take over of house and senate as well as commander in chief is complete.

[Onkel Neal]

Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, get back to conservative basics. The McCaim campaign was the most poorly run since Dole.

[subchaser12]

Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, get back to conservative basics. The McCaim campaign was the most poorly run since Dole.

The only republican I saw recently was Ron Paul. It was strange how the republicans currently in power acted like he was a leper. Why did the right work so tirelessly to defeat Ron Paul? He had just as much enthusiasm on the right as Obama on the left, they didn't want that though. Strange.

[Konovalov]

Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, get back to conservative basics. The McCaim campaign was the most poorly run since Dole.
Yep, that sums it up perfectly. Stop spending and return to fiscal conservative values. :yep:

[OneToughHerring]

Oh it's over for them, no more racism for them to take advantage of.

[August]

Oh it's over for them, no more racism for them to take advantage of.

Go away troll...

[MothBalls]

My $0.02 (I'm going to make some generalizations, so just kill me now)

When I watched the election coverage on CNN, they had multiple live feeds and you could switch between the dem and rep receptions.

The GOP side was an indoor stuffy event. They were playing Dixieland and people singing Tony Orlando and Barry Manilow songs. It looked like a [mostly white] senior citizens convention. I didn't see many people under 40 in the crowd. Whatever happened to the young republicans?

Of course we all saw the rally in the park, huge crowd. Did you notice who was in the crowd? Young people, ethnic people, more representative of a cross section of America.

I think the media has been working hard to make it seem like the current state of the nation is because of "the ruling class" republicans have exploited all they can from the "oppressed".

I personally don't blame the republicans for the current state of things, I don't believe the press. It's a combination of things like corporate greed, derivatives, fractional reserve system, etc. There was some articles pointing out the current administration did warn of troubles looming, nobody wanted to listen and the media didn't want to sell it.

The republicans need to get up to speed. I think they are out of touch with the [new] majority of the voters. I think the voters are tired of rich senile old white guys running the country.


And, as said before, it wouldn't matter who ran for the republicans in this election. They were on the way out before the first primary started. I think it a miracle that McCain actually lead in the polls at any time.

I still wonder if the republicans really didn't want this election and asked McCain to step up and take one on the chin for the good of the country. He's the kind of guy who would do that, who would make that kind of sacrifice. Then when he started winning, they needed to make sure he didn't so they picked whatshername.

[Blacklight]

I still wonder if the republicans really didn't want this election and asked McCain to step up and take one on the chin for the good of the country.

I get this feeling too. They didn't put much of anything into their campaign and made their platforms as vague as possible. I can't help but think that it was a bit of a strategy to "throw the election" and let the Democrats into power while we're in the middle of major financial crisis and in a quagmire in the middle east thereby hopeing to make the democrats look bad and trying to ensure the win in four years because by then.. with their spin doctoring, they'll make themselves look sqeaky clean while the democrats are still struggling with the messes that eight years of George W. left behind.

[SteamWake]

Hey he said quagmire... heh :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

My $0.02 (I'm going to make some generalizations, so just kill me now)

When I watched the election coverage on CNN, they had multiple live feeds and you could switch between the dem and rep receptions.

The GOP side was an indoor stuffy event. They were playing Dixieland and people singing Tony Orlando and Barry Manilow songs. It looked like a [mostly white] senior citizens convention. I didn't see many people under 40 in the crowd. Whatever happened to the young republicans?

Of course we all saw the rally in the park, huge crowd. Did you notice who was in the crowd? Young people, ethnic people, more representative of a cross section of America.

I think the media has been working hard to make it seem like the current state of the nation is because of "the ruling class" republicans have exploited all they can from the "oppressed".

I personally don't blame the republicans for the current state of things, I don't believe the press. It's a combination of things like corporate greed, derivatives, fractional reserve system, etc. There was some articles pointing out the current administration did warn of troubles looming, nobody wanted to listen and the media didn't want to sell it.

The republicans need to get up to speed. I think they are out of touch with the [new] majority of the voters. I think the voters are tired of rich senile old white guys running the country.


And, as said before, it wouldn't matter who ran for the republicans in this election. They were on the way out before the first primary started. I think it a miracle that McCain actually lead in the polls at any time.

I still wonder if the republicans really didn't want this election and asked McCain to step up and take one on the chin for the good of the country. He's the kind of guy who would do that, who would make that kind of sacrifice. Then when he started winning, they needed to make sure he didn't so they picked whatshername.
It was the rich senile old guys who fought the wars so we can express ourselves right here on the forums. But, somehow that is lost in the "cross-section of America" who are intouch...with what exactly I'm not sure.....

I do not think the election was thrown but the support of fellow Republican lacked big time.

[Skybird]

Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, get back to conservative basics.

Sure. The people voted for Obama, and the very clear majority of first voters and young voters voted for him - because the Republicans are not conservative enough. Logical! :lol:

the simple truth is that the young ones and many people who over the past years moved into the Us or moved inside the US into historical Republöican strongholds, were not republican, and were not interested in conservatism. By ethnic and demographic chnages and age structures and ethnic migration patterns I cannot see that trend ending. So, republicans need to reinvent a new form of wjhat it means to be Republican. The old formulas are more and more unlikely to work in attracting voters.

And I remember that you and me had a discussion on that some years ago, where I already predicted that! ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, get back to conservative basics.
Sure. The people voted for Obama, and the very clear majority of first voters and young voters voted for him - because the Republicans are not conservative enough. Logical! :lol:

the simple truth is that the young ones and many people who over the past years moved into the Us or moved inside the US into historical Republöican strongholds, were not republican, and were not interested in conservatism. By ethnic and demographic chnages and age structures and ethnic migration patterns I cannot see that trend ending. So, republicans need to reinvent a new form of wjhat it means to be Republican. The old formulas are more and more unlikely to work in attracting voters.

And I remember that you and me had a discussion on that some years ago, where I already predicted that! ;)


Do you ever break your arm patting yourself on your back? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[SteamWake]

Sure. The people voted for Obama, and the very clear majority of first voters and young voters {and multiple voters} voted for him - because the Republicans are not conservative enough. Logical! :lol:

the simple truth is that the young ones and many people who over the past years moved into the Us or moved inside the US into historical Republöican strongholds, were not republican, and were not interested in conservatism. By ethnic and demographic chnages and age structures and ethnic migration patterns I cannot see that trend ending. So, republicans need to reinvent a new form of wjhat it means to be Republican. The old formulas are more and more unlikely to work in attracting voters.

And I remember that you and me had a discussion on that some years ago, where I already predicted that! ;)

Fixed for you...

Actually it does make sense, alot of conservative republicans did not like McCain and felt in some ways the best thing would be for him to lose, not to mention votes that went to third party / write in candidates.

The election was not the 'landslide' as painted in the popular media. Yes he took the majoirty of electoral votes but thats another topic. In the popular vote it was actually pretty close.

[Zachstar]

The next move needs to be to Ron Paul.

Right now the urge is to throw Jindal or Sarah into the fire for 2012. Yet all indications are 2012 will be just as difficult for a pub to win as 2008.

If the republicans want to win they have one chance. Technology. They must embrace new advancements and sever all times to the oil and fossil fuels of the past. McCain gained lots of ground with this approach before the repubs shut him up and made him talk about RW crap and "Drill baby Drill!"

Otherwise all you have to say is oil party again in 2012 and the defeats will pour in.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think Jindal is a stand up guy and did one hell of a job with both hurricanes this year. He should be look at seriously IMO. However, is Jindal an American born citizen?

[Zachstar]

I think Jindal is a stand up guy and did one hell of a job with both hurricanes this year. He should be look at seriously IMO. However, is Jindal an American born citizen?

I respect Jindal as the leader of my state. But his views are rather wack and can only succeed in die hard pro-life and pro-death penalty states.

If the pubs want to run him. Go ahead. Plenty for us to tear about so dems win in 2016. (Jindal is not dumb enough to try in 2012)

[SteamWake]

However, is Jindal an American born citizen?

Why? Is that important? :doh: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Sorry couldent resisit.

[MothBalls]

Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[August]

I recall that 8 years ago people were debating whether the Democrats would ever win back Congress let alone the oval office. The truth of the matter is that it's always easier to criticize the party in power than it is to have to decide the best course of action. The Dems will surely fall again just like they have in the past. The pendulum must swing and it will.

That's what makes my country great...

[bookworm_020]

They will do what happens here in Australia after a party is beaten out of office after being there for years.

1 blame the other side for lying

2 When it is shown that they lied too, they blame each other

3 Decide who to blame and see them fired / scapegoated / burnt at the stake

4 Throw the next election chances due to being too busy ploting to be the next leader, pbeing the leader and trying to get rid of the ones who want to be

5 Take the negative line against everything the other party wants to do and block them at every turn

6 Get back in when the other side has grown lazy / tired / board or has stuffed up beyond what spin can control.

Cycle then restarts!:doh:

[FIREWALL]

Here's a fresh take on this topic ... I don't know and like the rest of you in a year won't give a sheet. :p

[Zachstar]

I recall that 8 years ago people were debating whether the Democrats would ever win back Congress let alone the oval office. The truth of the matter is that it's always easier to criticize the party in power than it is to have to decide the best course of action. The Dems will surely fall again just like they have in the past. The pendulum must swing and it will.

That's what makes my country great...

Looking forward to you wondering what happened after dems win big in 2012 and 2016.

[Skybird]

The pendulum must swing and it will.

That's what makes my country great...

If that is all, then it is nothing special, because it is like this in almost all Western countries. Socialists and Conservatives in France, Labour and Torries in England, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany - left and right the pendulum goes over the years and decades. And no natural law says that it has to be naturally attached to just one side, forever.

Since WWII, 12 D-years of Roosevelt and Truman, 8 R-years of Eisenhower, "8" D-years of Kennedy and Johnson, "8" R-years of Nixon+ Ford, 4 D-years of Carter, 12 R-years Reagan + Bush, 8 D-years Clinton, 8 R-years of Bush, 4 or 8 D-years of Obama.
Democratic : Republican presidential years 36(40) : 36. what is so special there?

Wowh, I managed that list by memory only. :lol: Can anyone do this with German chancellors as well? :lol:

[August]

I recall that 8 years ago people were debating whether the Democrats would ever win back Congress let alone the oval office. The truth of the matter is that it's always easier to criticize the party in power than it is to have to decide the best course of action. The Dems will surely fall again just like they have in the past. The pendulum must swing and it will.

That's what makes my country great...
Looking forward to you wondering what happened after dems win big in 2012 and 2016.

Counting your chickens before they're hatched i see. That's what done in the Republicans...

[SteamWake]

I recall that 8 years ago people were debating whether the Democrats would ever win back Congress let alone the oval office. The truth of the matter is that it's always easier to criticize the party in power than it is to have to decide the best course of action. The Dems will surely fall again just like they have in the past. The pendulum must swing and it will.

That's what makes my country great...

Looking forward to you wondering what happened after dems win big in 2012 and 2016.

If they dont manage to make a total wreck out of things the balance of power will slowly cycle once again.

I think once americans get over the 'rock star' image and begin to learn the agenda attitudes will change.

When congress starts dicking around with peoples retirement accounts, taxes ballon out of control with little to nothing to show for it attitudes will change.

When the chosen one begins to renig or scale back his promises after a reality check attitudes will change.

meh its all cyclic anyhow like global warming it gets warmer then it cools down rinse repeat nothing new here.

[August]

If that is all, then...

Our pendulum has been swinging for over two centuries. When (if) your country equals that, then you can claim there isn't anything special to it...

[donut]

http://news.newsmax.com/?KKCDXKpjZaA6mwSy2FNOw5AZnXretfU1K&http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/chambliss_obama_georgia/2008/11/09/149440.html?s=al&promo_code=70D7-1

[Blacklight]

The old formulas are more and more unlikely to work in attracting voters.


I agree with this. The conservative message and philosophies are "out of date" and "out of touch" with the younger and new voters. More and more, the Republican rallies look like old, predominately white, old folk conventions at a country club. Their message and way of doing things just doesn't resonate with the majority of young people who are just getting into the staggering job/houseing/loan market and finding nothing there for them. Add to that a war that's draining millions every hour from us and you definitely will have the younger people turning away from the "Old Folks Convention". The old way of doing things is no longer applicable in today's society.

[Onkel Neal]

Republicans need to stop acting like Democrats, get back to conservative basics.

Sure. The people voted for Obama, and the very clear majority of first voters and young voters voted for him - because the Republicans are not conservative enough. Logical! :lol:

the simple truth is that the young ones and many people who over the past years moved into the Us or moved inside the US into historical Republöican strongholds, were not republican, and were not interested in conservatism. By ethnic and demographic chnages and age structures and ethnic migration patterns I cannot see that trend ending. So, republicans need to reinvent a new form of wjhat it means to be Republican. The old formulas are more and more unlikely to work in attracting voters.

And I remember that you and me had a discussion on that some years ago, where I already predicted that! ;)

No, most people voted for Obama because he has charisma. You and your prediuctions. Honestly, I don't recall that, but you certainly have a thing for trying to predict future events and then reminding everyone about it. What's the motivation for that? :doh: I do remember, however, you predicted (loud and often) that the Iraq war would end badly for the US (quagmire, insurgents, Viet Nam 2.0) but that hasn't panned out for you. Of course, you may be right in the end, after Jan and Lord Obama pulls a Clinton in Somalia act :x

Ten years ago I predicted Jobs would spur Apple back into competitiveness, but I didn't tell anyone except my broker. Best $7500 I ever invested.

[Digital_Trucker]

The old formulas are more and more unlikely to work in attracting voters.

I agree with this. The conservative message and philosophies are "out of date" and "out of touch" with the younger and new voters. More and more, the Republican rallies look like old, predominately white, old folk conventions at a country club. Their message and way of doing things just doesn't resonate with the majority of young people who are just getting into the staggering job/houseing/loan market and finding nothing there for them. Add to that a war that's draining millions every hour from us and you definitely will have the younger people turning away from the "Old Folks Convention". The old way of doing things is no longer applicable in today's society.
The real question is, is the old way of doing things no longer applicable in today's society because there is something wrong with the old way of doing things or because there is something wrong with today's society?:hmm:

[joegrundman]

Are you so sure that the conservative way IS the old way?

[Kapt Z]

I recall that 8 years ago people were debating whether the Democrats would ever win back Congress let alone the oval office. The truth of the matter is that it's always easier to criticize the party in power than it is to have to decide the best course of action. The Dems will surely fall again just like they have in the past. The pendulum must swing and it will.

That's what makes my country great...

The pendulum will swing easier if the Republicans-

A)Embrace a 'live and let live' attitude toward 'values'

B)Return to realistic/pragmatic foreign policies

C)Reach out to minorities and address their concerns

D)Understand regulation of industry does not HAVE to be evil

E)Return to fiscally responsible gov't. If a program(s) is important to your constituents then find a way to pay for it. That may even require tax increases occasionally. If the program is popular the pain will be manageable. The only thing worse than 'tax and spend' is 'just spend'

F)Remember GOD does not belong to a political party

[SteamWake]

Are you so sure that the conservative way IS the old way?

Why dont we ask the founding fathers and the constitution shall we?

[subchaser12]

I do remember, however, you predicted (loud and often) that the Iraq war would end badly for the US (quagmire, insurgents, Viet Nam 2.0) but that hasn't panned out for you.


Ummm, I hate to be rude and point this out, but Iraq has been a total disaster. Well, maybe not a total disaster. It has been a billion dollar godsend for the contractors in Iraq. They are the only real winners in the war. Half my family was tempted with 100,000 a year jobs in Iraq. From cops to ex-military. None of us accepted, there isn't enough money to get tortured to death on youtube by a bunch of dancing insurgents.

[FIREWALL]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg

[fatty]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg

Why are you posting this in every thread? I don't get it.

[bookworm_020]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg
Why are you posting this in every thread? I don't get it.

He's just driving up his post count!

(must stop myself doing this!)

[August]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg
Why are you posting this in every thread? I don't get it.
He's just driving up his post count!

(must stop myself doing this!)

+1 :D

[FIREWALL]

Every Political or whacky wayout thread will be seeing this.

And Right :roll: I don't have a clue why your doing this, Go bleach your hair your roots are showing Paris :p

[joegrundman]

Are you so sure that the conservative way IS the old way?
Why dont we ask the founding fathers and the constitution shall we?

let me guess - they said no?

[Blacklight]

The real question is, is the old way of doing things no longer applicable in today's society because there is something wrong with the old way of doing things or because there is something wrong with today's society?:hmm:

I wouldn't use the word "wrong". I'd use the word "changed". Over time, people, society, everything evolves and changes. Everything moves on. There's always going to be the people who cling to the past and claim that the new ways of doing things are wrong, but in reality, it's society evolving. Things change and each party is going to have to change with it if they expect to keep voters. The conservative party has fairly consistently been clinging to the old philosophies and way of doing things. The majority of their supporters are people who tend to want to cling to the past or don't handle change well such as big businesses being run by the "good old boys". While not all the conservatives fall into this category, the vast number of their supporters certainly do and as a matter of fact, usually oppose change in the country's philosophies and those made by scientific discoveries.
So I wouldn't use the word "wrong" at all. Nothing is "wrong". It's just change like we've been doing since the beginning of time.

[August]

The conservative party has fairly consistently been clinging to the old philosophies and way of doing things. The majority of their supporters are people who tend to want to cling to the past or don't handle change well such as big businesses being run by the "good old boys". While not all the conservatives fall into this category, the vast number of their supporters certainly do and as a matter of fact, usually oppose change in the country's philosophies and those made by scientific discoveries.

You paint with a pretty large brush there Blacklight...

[Skybird]

I do remember, however, you predicted (loud and often) that the Iraq war would end badly for the US (quagmire, insurgents, Viet Nam 2.0) but that hasn't panned out for you.
No? What else is it than just this: a quagmire, insurgents still bombing their way around, and your country not one single step closer to a clear miliztary victory, by any means? Not to mention the unimaginable costs and follow-up costs now counting already in 3-5 trillions?

If this is not a quagmire, then I hope I am no longer alive once there is an event that you would agree to call a quagmire. The operational and political goals of the war that you once had for Iraq, are not and will never be acchieved, that simple - and that defines what a military failure is. Your war gets judged by the standards of what you claimed you want to achcieve, and that was a stable American-style democracy serving as an example form others and stemming the tide of Iranian influence. Both you won't get. And I even do not talk about the WMD-claims before the war here.

Why I remind people of when I predicted something? Because I got so often accused over the years, and attacked, to have predicted something wrong, and to have wished for something wrong, and that I would celebrate if it then goes wrong - and then I got proven right nevertheless. That gives some late satisfaction that I was right at the time back then when insisting on that the negative outcome of something could have been seen in advance indeed - if only one would have looked close and careful enough at it. Even Patreus admitts that he is not sure the relative improvement in security he acchieved will last. In past weeks, the frequency and scale of bombing assaults has seen an increase again, for example. The government still is deeply corrupt, and not master of the house. The Iranians lay in wait to let the dust settle a bit. And that all should be a "convincing success"...? Please...

Please don't tell me you consider this status in Iraq anything else but a desaster, after five years and many tens if not hundreds of thousand dead, and many tens of thousands of US troops killed, physically wounded and mentally severly wounded. I count psychological effects on troops due to their often severe social and individual conseqeunces as regular woundings, like if being given a bleeding wound. It is manipulation of statistics to leave those numbers out, and the loss and suffering it could mean for the individual victim can become very, very high and existence-crushing - and often does.

[subchaser12]

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the republican party per se. I think there isn't anything wrong with any American politcal party on it's merits. Having said that it is obvious that they don't have the numbers that they used to. I mean losing Virginia and North Carolina was astounding. That would be like New York going red. That is a sign of major trouble. If the republican party wants to tout the whole "leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, they won't have the numbers to get back into the Whitehouse. I mean really, who lives like that still? Families are hybrids now. You can't even tell an investment banker from an artist anymore, things have changed. The problem with the right is it's inflexibility. No one fits into their "one right answer" lifestyle, even their supporters usually don't.

The left on the other hand welcomes everyone. From gays on one hand to just regular middle America white families who don't want the church and government telling anyone who they can sleep with or marry.

[August]

The left on the other hand welcomes everyone. From gays on one hand to just regular middle America white families who don't want the church and government telling anyone who they can sleep with or marry.

They don't welcome everyone. Gun owners for example. The left has been downright hostile to 2nd Amendment supporters. Religious people are another group that the left regularly pillories. Same with business owners.

[Onkel Neal]

I do remember, however, you predicted (loud and often) that the Iraq war would end badly for the US (quagmire, insurgents, Viet Nam 2.0) but that hasn't panned out for you.


Ummm, I hate to be rude and point this out, but Iraq has been a total disaster. Well, maybe not a total disaster. It has been a billion dollar godsend for the contractors in Iraq. They are the only real winners in the war. Half my family was tempted with 100,000 a year jobs in Iraq. From cops to ex-military. None of us accepted, there isn't enough money to get tortured to death on youtube by a bunch of dancing insurgents.

That's not rude, just inaccurate.

[subchaser12]

That's not rude, just inaccurate.

Tell me how Iraq has been a success. I have relatives in Iraq with shiny pieces of metal on their collar, they have been saying for years it's a mess. Your take on it?

[OneToughHerring]

The real question is, is the old way of doing things no longer applicable in today's society because there is something wrong with the old way of doing things or because there is something wrong with today's society?:hmm:
I wouldn't use the word "wrong". I'd use the word "changed". Over time, people, society, everything evolves and changes. Everything moves on. There's always going to be the people who cling to the past and claim that the new ways of doing things are wrong, but in reality, it's society evolving. Things change and each party is going to have to change with it if they expect to keep voters. The conservative party has fairly consistently been clinging to the old philosophies and way of doing things. The majority of their supporters are people who tend to want to cling to the past or don't handle change well such as big businesses being run by the "good old boys". While not all the conservatives fall into this category, the vast number of their supporters certainly do and as a matter of fact, usually oppose change in the country's philosophies and those made by scientific discoveries.
So I wouldn't use the word "wrong" at all. Nothing is "wrong". It's just change like we've been doing since the beginning of time.
Well written. :up: subchaser12 is also on point.

Personally I've never understood how Americans on the other hand want freedoms and on the other have these religious zealots that they elect to high offices to basically curtail their freedoms. What gives?

[Bewolf]

Actually, there are ppl out there considering Iraq worse then Vietnam when it comes to the US and it's stance in the world. Losses are not as high as in Vietnam, but the damage america took, in it's reputation, in it's economics and the own populations psychology have a far greater impact on the US' freedom of action in the world. While Vietnam did not change much in the constellation of the world in the 70ies, Iraq has practically brought down the US from "the" superpower with a huge diplomatic authority in the world to a "mere" superpower which now faces opposition whereever it looks.
It also made the world a whole lot less safe in general.

[subchaser12]

While Vietnam did not change much in the constellation of the world in the 70ies, Iraq has practically brought down the US from "the" superpower with a huge diplomatic authority in the world to a "mere" superpower which now faces opposition whereever it looks.
It also made the world a whole lot less safe in general.

Well no one is really afraid of America anymore. Why should they be? We lost in Vietnam. We got the beatdown by untrained starved Africans on drugs in Somalia. That dead body being drug around on CNN was a Delta Force guy, supposedly our "best of the best", that was no ordinary grunt. Delta Force was in the failed Desert One fiasco where we tried to rescue hostages in Iran. There was the Marine barraks that got blown up by ONE guy in Beirut. Then there is Iraq and Afghanistan where we are getting slapped around and embarrased yet again by a bunch of insurgents that have nothing more than AKs, RPGs and IEDs. For such a big baddy superpower we sure get our butts kicked a lot.

What war have we won since world war 2? Even in world war 2 we were only on the winning side, America acts like we did it single handed. Let's look at the score since World War 2

Korean War = Draw
Vietnam = Lost
Grendad = Win
Panama = Win
Desert Storm = Won an air campaign with limited ground fighitng. Bombed Iraq for 9 months.
Somalia = Lost
Iraqi "Freedom" = Lost
Afghanistan = Lost.

Why should a country really fear us? The only thing we are capable of is knocking over a banana republic in South America.

[subchaser12]

Personally I've never understood how Americans on the other hand want freedoms and on the other have these religious zealots that they elect to high offices to basically curtail their freedoms. What gives?

Well, it took us long enough but we recently threw our religous zealouts out of office in a landslide. Better late than never. I don't think we will see a return of the religious right in this country. They are free to go to church 24/7 and eat all the potato salad they want. However, the rest of the country got sick of them telling the rest of us how to live our lives so we threw them out.

[Digital_Trucker]

Actually, there are ppl out there considering Iraq worse then Vietnam when it comes to the US and it's stance in the world. Losses are not as high as in Vietnam, but the damage america took, in it's reputation, in it's economics and the own populations psychology have a far greater impact on the US' freedom of action in the world. While Vietnam did not change much in the constellation of the world in the 70ies, Iraq has practically brought down the US from "the" superpower with a huge diplomatic authority in the world to a "mere" superpower which now faces opposition whereever it looks.
It also made the world a whole lot less safe in general.

And what crystal ball are you using to determine how safe the world would be at this point in time had events not transpired as they did?:hmm:

[Blacklight]

You paint with a pretty large brush there Blacklight...

And I have trouble lifting it sometimes ! I'm going to have to invest in one of those industrial paint spray guns. :D

[Skybird]

Desert Storm = Won an air campaign with limited ground fighitng. Bombed Iraq for 9 months.


Limited ground fighting? The greatest tank battle since WWII , and one of the biggest known in all history...?

I agree, the ground action was short. But do not conclude from that that it was easy, or light. It was extremely intense. 8 Iraqi divisions, at least 4 of which were tank-heavy divisions, were completly mauled, if I remember correctly 3 were completely wiped out. During the battle at Basra the Iraqui fought back, and by far did not give up withoiut fighting. It's just that the M1's armour, fire range and "silver bullets" (uranium ammunition) together with their night fighting capability proved their hitting fire ineffective. If both sides would have used comparable equipment, the American losses in vehicles would have been very high. It did not compare to the kind of asymmetraical war the Americans would face again twelve years later.

[August]

Well, it took us long enough but we recently threw our religous zealouts out of office in a landslide. Better late than never. I don't think we will see a return of the religious right in this country. They are free to go to church 24/7 and eat all the potato salad they want. However, the rest of the country got sick of them telling the rest of us how to live our lives so we threw them out.

What landslide are you talking about?

[Skybird]

Actually, there are ppl out there considering Iraq worse then Vietnam when it comes to the US and it's stance in the world. Losses are not as high as in Vietnam, but the damage america took, in it's reputation, in it's economics and the own populations psychology have a far greater impact on the US' freedom of action in the world. While Vietnam did not change much in the constellation of the world in the 70ies, Iraq has practically brought down the US from "the" superpower with a huge diplomatic authority in the world to a "mere" superpower which now faces opposition whereever it looks.
It also made the world a whole lot less safe in general.

And what crystal ball are you using to determine how safe the world would be at this point in time had events not transpired as they did?:hmm:
We know the3 assessments of even US intedl services that in the wake of Iraq the global security status has not become better, but worse. Today there are more young men willing to fight or commit suicide terror attacks then before, and Al Quaeda has grown both in size and complexity. Again: that are not just my views, this is what the community of Us intel has to say on the issue. Of course, the league of dilletants, the adminsitration, felt free to simply disagree witzh that. It's just that they were unable to give convicning reasons why the intel assessement is wrong and their wishful thinking should be superior in insight and quality.

[Digital_Trucker]

Actually, there are ppl out there considering Iraq worse then Vietnam when it comes to the US and it's stance in the world. Losses are not as high as in Vietnam, but the damage america took, in it's reputation, in it's economics and the own populations psychology have a far greater impact on the US' freedom of action in the world. While Vietnam did not change much in the constellation of the world in the 70ies, Iraq has practically brought down the US from "the" superpower with a huge diplomatic authority in the world to a "mere" superpower which now faces opposition whereever it looks.
It also made the world a whole lot less safe in general.
And what crystal ball are you using to determine how safe the world would be at this point in time had events not transpired as they did?:hmm: We know the3 assessments of even US intedl services that in the wake of Iraq the global security status has not become better, but worse. Today there are more young men willing to fight or commit suicide terror attacks then before, and Al Quaeda has grown both in size and complexity. Again: that are not just my views, this is what the community of Us intel has to say on the issue. Of course, the league of dilletants, the adminsitration, felt free to simply disagree witzh that. It's just that they were unable to give convicning reasons why the intel assessement is wrong and their wishful thinking should be superior in insight and quality.
You missed my point. How do you know that something even worse than the results of the invasion would not have occurred since the date of said invasion? It is easy to say that the world is not as safe as it was then, but how do we know what the alternate world would have been like? The answer is that we don't know, nor will we ever know because it's too late to do it over.

[donut]

Al Gore Involved in Ga. Race, Wants Filibuster-Proof Senate (http://news.newsmax.com/?SKOv.Hfh.-16omH-EmpOtlAZeQletfUAS&http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_senate_donations/2008/11/14/151276.html?s=al&promo_code=714B-1)
McCain Asks Voters to 'Battle' for Sen. Chambliss (http://news.newsmax.com/?SKOv.Hfh.-16omH-EmpOtlAZeQletfUAS&http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_georgia_plea/2008/11/14/151145.html?s=al&promo_code=714B-1)

[Skybird]

You missed my point. How do you know that something even worse than the results of the invasion would not have occurred since the date of said invasion? It is easy to say that the world is not as safe as it was then, but how do we know what the alternate world would have been like? The answer is that we don't know, nor will we ever know because it's too late to do it over.
So what you're about? at best your hypothetical what if-sacenario can serve as a lame excuse given for a situation of "just in case that".

What we know is that the number of terrorists and attracted young men has grown as direct consequnces to the Iraq war, and that the costs for business secuerity measures and anti-terror-proteciton in our home countries have multiplied dramatically. And that is not hypothetical, but bitter reality.

And Neal: you'll hate it - but I predicted that as well! ;)

[Digital_Trucker]

You missed my point. How do you know that something even worse than the results of the invasion would not have occurred since the date of said invasion? It is easy to say that the world is not as safe as it was then, but how do we know what the alternate world would have been like? The answer is that we don't know, nor will we ever know because it's too late to do it over. So what you're about? at best your hypothetical what if-sacenario can serve as a lame excuse given for a situation of "just in case that".

What we know is that the number of terrorists and attracted young men has grown as direct consequnces to the Iraq war, and that the costs for business secuerity measures and anti-terror-proteciton in our home countries have multiplied dramatically. And that is not hypothetical, but bitter reality.

And Neal: you'll hate it - but I predicted that as well! ;)

No lame excuse, your answer to my original question (go back and read it, maybe I'll even try to translate it into German for you) was faulty. I'm not offering excuses for anything or trying to dispute the results of the known actions of the past, just trying to give you something to think about. But, as usual, you're too busy trying to hammer your diatribe home to stop to think for a moment about the original question.:roll:

BTW, if "what-if" is such a stupid question, then where would your all-mighty science be? Think about it before you answer it this time.:p

[Skybird]

Bye.

[August]

Y'see DT, Skybird has a problem with criticism. Not with giving it mind, he lives for that, just with taking a dose of his own medicine.

[subchaser12]

What landslide are you talking about?

Were you out to sea with a dead radio on November 2nd?

[SUBMAN1]

Y'see DT, Skybird has a problem with criticism. Not with giving it mind, he lives for that, just with taking a dose of his own medicine.Give SB a break. He is just spouting out for all those days he was in school in which either consisted of him getting beat up or ignored. It's just pent up emotion is all, directed about a country that ultimately controls his destiny in the end. An emotionally disturbed individual.

Why else would he be interested in psychology, or wanting to kill all of us with his Samurai sword? Someday, you will read about him in the papers. Mark my words....

-S

[subchaser12]

You missed my point. How do you know that something even worse than the results of the invasion would not have occurred since the date of said invasion? It is easy to say that the world is not as safe as it was then, but how do we know what the alternate world would have been like? The answer is that we don't know, nor will we ever know because it's too late to do it over.

The alternative would be easy to see. Leave Saddam in Iraq, like he had been since 1979 without incident. Then we could have put as much effort into Afghanistan that we did Iraq. Bin Laden would have been found within the year and Afghanistan would have condos built there by now.

The Neocons didn't want that did they? No, they want control of that oil spicket in the desert. We all know they really didn't want to kill or capture Bin Laden. He is far more valuable on the loose than dead or captured. Why? Easy, he is the eternal boogey man now. The big joke at the pentagon in 1989 was "now that we defeated the Russians, how do we bring them back?" If you got Bin Laden, Joe Sixpack would claim "wars over bring the boys home". That isn't their agenda however. The longer the war drags the more money they make. People still can't agree on a solid definition of terrorism. Plus with all the vague goals in the "war on terror" it's very easy for the Neocons to keep moving the goal posts. So we get bullcrap answers like "we will know victory when we see it". Ok then, well we sure know defeat when we see it.

Iraq isn't that complicated. The largest oil consuming country in the world invaded a country sitting on the worlds largest oil reserves. You can toss me one of the ever changing reasons for the Iraq invasion, but the whole world knows why we invaded. Bagdad has been invaded 31 times since the early 1900's, Churchill was the first industrial age man to have his troops marching in the desert for that black gold I believe. The history alone prior to the US invasion tells us that the industrial revolution made life hell for anyone sitting on top of an oil field over there.

[Sea Demon]

Yes. Skybird is the kind of guy that is very afraid of real debate, and usually gets nothing right...despite his narcissism and arrogance to the contrary. Reading and regurgitating der speigel word for word is not prediction. Skybird is an individual who would be ready to bow and grovel before a Russian or Islamist threat if it goes that way rather than have the courage and nobility to defend one's own interest in security. I truly hope that when the "you know what hits the fan"....Skybird is truly only one person and not of like mind with others surounding him. Skybird is a confused soul who doesn't know a friend from an enemy. This is the kind of guy who also believes responding to threats grows the threat. While one sees the enemy respond in a vigorous manner, and perhaps spur some new recruits, this is a highly innacurate, warped, and narrow view of the truth. In all his hubris, he has failed to learn the lessons sprung from his own country during the last century. Imagine trying to defeat the Nazi's from his country using this modern form of "intellectual" "thought" of growing threats by confronting threats.

[August]

What landslide are you talking about?
Were you out to sea with a dead radio on November 2nd?

Sorry, 364 to 162 electoral votes is a clear victory but it is certainly not a landslide. Especially not with the popular vote being so close with Obama only carrying a mere 52%.

Now if you want an example of a real landslide look at Reagan/Carter with 489 electoral votes for Reagan versus a mere 49 for Carter, or better yet Reagan/Mondale with 525 vs a paltry 13. Those are landslides. Even Bush Sr/Dukakis at 426 vs 111 is considered a minor landslide.

So forget the propaganda you've heard. The Democrats are now going to have to prove themselves or you'll see them bounced out of office faster than a crooked Republican.

[Digital_Trucker]

You missed my point. How do you know that something even worse than the results of the invasion would not have occurred since the date of said invasion? It is easy to say that the world is not as safe as it was then, but how do we know what the alternate world would have been like? The answer is that we don't know, nor will we ever know because it's too late to do it over.
The alternative would be easy to see. Leave Saddam in Iraq, like he had been since 1979 without incident. Then we could have put as much effort into Afghanistan that we did Iraq. Bin Laden would have been found within the year and Afghanistan would have condos built there by now.

The Neocons didn't want that did they? No, they want control of that oil spicket in the desert. We all know they really didn't want to kill or capture Bin Laden. He is far more valuable on the loose than dead or captured. Why? Easy, he is the eternal boogey man now. The big joke at the pentagon in 1989 was "now that we defeated the Russians, how do we bring them back?" If you got Bin Laden, Joe Sixpack would claim "wars over bring the boys home". That isn't their agenda however. The longer the war drags the more money they make. People still can't agree on a solid definition of terrorism. Plus with all the vague goals in the "war on terror" it's very easy for the Neocons to keep moving the goal posts. So we get bullcrap answers like "we will know victory when we see it". Ok then, well we sure know defeat when we see it.

Iraq isn't that complicated. The largest oil consuming country in the world invaded a country sitting on the worlds largest oil reserves. You can toss me one of the ever changing reasons for the Iraq invasion, but the whole world knows why we invaded. Bagdad has been invaded 31 times since the early 1900's, Churchill was the first industrial age man to have his troops marching in the desert for that black gold I believe. The history alone prior to the US invasion tells us that the industrial revolution made life hell for anyone sitting on top of an oil field over there.
Jeez, another one who doesn't understand what the original question was. I'm glad you're so confident that you can ascertain, for certain, what would or wouldn't have happened. There's a word for that, wait a minute, let me think about it for a second, oh yeah, delusional.

Once again, I never said anything to defend the invasion or attempt to make lame excuses for it. I was merely addressing the point that we have no way of knowing for sure that the world is more dangerous now than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq.

as Skybird said, bye

[subchaser12]

So forget the propaganda you've heard. The Democrats are now going to have to prove themselves or you'll see them bounced out of office faster than a crooked Republican.

It wasn't the biggest landslide in history, but it was still a landslide. You can deny it is you want, but McCain got Rodney Kinged. Come on man, you all lost Virginia and North Carolina to a black guy. The rights in deep stuff. Now that the African American's know how much power they have at the ballot box, we will be lucky to see another white president, let alone a republican one.

[Digital_Trucker]

So forget the propaganda you've heard. The Democrats are now going to have to prove themselves or you'll see them bounced out of office faster than a crooked Republican.
It wasn't the biggest landslide in history, but it was still a landslide. You can deny it is you want, but McCain got Rodney Kinged. Come on man, you all lost Virginia and North Carolina to a black guy. The rights in deep stuff. Now that the African American's know how much power they have at the ballot box, we will be lucky to see another white president, let alone a republican one.

Funny you should bring up the racial aspect of the election. Have you taken a peek at the demographics? Might make you wonder who's racist and who's not, if you thought about it for a moment or two.:hmm:

[1480]

So forget the propaganda you've heard. The Democrats are now going to have to prove themselves or you'll see them bounced out of office faster than a crooked Republican.
It wasn't the biggest landslide in history, but it was still a landslide. You can deny it is you want, but McCain got Rodney Kinged. Come on man, you all lost Virginia and North Carolina to a black guy. The rights in deep stuff. Now that the African American's know how much power they have at the ballot box, we will be lucky to see another white president, let alone a republican one.

Funny you should bring up the racial aspect of the election. Have you taken a peek at the demographics? Might make you wonder who's racist and who's not, if you thought about it for a moment or two.:hmm:

Please DT, don't bring up the fact that 96% of blacks voted for BHO, and that close to 65% of whites voted for him..... could it be the fact that BHO is half white have anything to do with it? (AND I AM BEING REALLY SARCASTIC FOLKS, SO PIPE DOWN ON THE RACIST CRAP)

[1480]

Oh yeah, can we quit this nonsense ****-american. If you are a citizen of whatever friggin country you live in, guess what, you are that native son. Charlize Theron and Thersa Heinz Kerry are the only African Americans I know of and they as white as the new snow fall.

[OneToughHerring]

Yes. Skybird is the kind of guy that is very afraid of real debate, and usually gets nothing right...despite his narcissism and arrogance to the contrary. Reading and regurgitating der speigel word for word is not prediction. Skybird is an individual who would be ready to bow and grovel before a Russian or Islamist threat if it goes that way rather than have the courage and nobility to defend one's own interest in security. I truly hope that when the "you know what hits the fan"....Skybird is truly only one person and not of like mind with others surounding him. Skybird is a confused soul who doesn't know a friend from an enemy. This is the kind of guy who also believes responding to threats grows the threat. While one sees the enemy respond in a vigorous manner, and perhaps spur some new recruits, this is a highly innacurate, warped, and narrow view of the truth. In all his hubris, he has failed to learn the lessons sprung from his own country during the last century. Imagine trying to defeat the Nazi's from his country using this modern form of "intellectual" "thought" of growing threats by confronting threats.

Maybe you folks should attack the issues instead of the person, ok? Unless you want same in return.

[Skybird]

Yes. Skybird is the kind of guy that is very afraid of real debate, and usually gets nothing right...despite his narcissism and arrogance to the contrary. Reading and regurgitating der speigel word for word is not prediction. Skybird is an individual who would be ready to bow and grovel before a Russian or Islamist threat if it goes that way rather than have the courage and nobility to defend one's own interest in security. I truly hope that when the "you know what hits the fan"....Skybird is truly only one person and not of like mind with others surounding him. Skybird is a confused soul who doesn't know a friend from an enemy. This is the kind of guy who also believes responding to threats grows the threat. While one sees the enemy respond in a vigorous manner, and perhaps spur some new recruits, this is a highly innacurate, warped, and narrow view of the truth. In all his hubris, he has failed to learn the lessons sprung from his own country during the last century. Imagine trying to defeat the Nazi's from his country using this modern form of "intellectual" "thought" of growing threats by confronting threats.

Maybe you folks should attack the issues instead of the person, ok? Unless you want same in return.

Ah, SD has proven his usual poor standards again. If you just do not expect any better from him, he will never disappoint you. :up:

[Schöneboom]

Getting back on topic... I'm an independent and lately have taken Mercutio's position to heart: "A pox on both their houses!" :p

We now live in a corrupt, end-stage republic, devolving rapidly into tyranny. This seems to be the fate of all republics. Assuming that conditions do not deteriorate to the point that revolution becomes the only option, electoral victory will depend on cobbling together a different coalition from what worked for Republicans in the 20th C.

Getting back to first principles would be helpful. The GOP made a big mistake pandering to evangelicals, who really don't mix well with fiscal conservatives, who tend to be libertarian and firmly believe in separation of church & state. It is high time to kick the Christian Taliban out of the GOP's big tent, to make room for people who might otherwise find a small-government, anti-socialist platform appealing.

Believe it or not, a lot of Americans vote Democratic because they view the GOP as the greater threat to peace and liberty. A lot of other people (myself included) don't fall for that "lesser of two evils" scam. I fully expect the Chosen One to stab his gullible anti-war, pro-freedom supporters in the back, like a typical Democrat.

Now, if the GOP kicks out the neo-cons & the Jesus freaks, and remakes itself as the stauch supporter of the Constitution, the party could draw new supporters from every part of society, including the "solid blue" East & West coasts. Such major shifts are possible: older Americans remember the "Solid South" was a Democratic stronghold for nearly a century after the Civil War.

There is one hot-button issue that could split any new coalition, and that is Immigration. Right now, it looks like the Democrats have the Latino vote locked up. If that bloc continues to grow, as I expect, the GOP will have to lure Latinos away from the Democrats (not with anti-abortion as the wedge, I hope). Make no mistake, the Demos hope to regain the South over the next several years. If they succeed, for ex., Texas turns blue, buh-bye GOP!

[subchaser12]

Good post Schoneboom. I thought the Jesus freaks made up 95% of the GOP though? I mean who else is voting for republicans besides those with big business interests?

[CaptainHaplo]

There is no doubt that the republican party has lost its way. That is not due to the "religious right", the "second ammendment" crowd, the "constitutionalists" or "fiscal conservatives". To say that we should "toss" a group out means that we become MORE like the democrats - telling people what they must believe or accept to be part of the "club". While the left says they are all about inclusion - its inclusion only if you agree with them.

Renoldus Magnus talked about how the strength of the republican party was its diversity. By that he meant that we hold a mutual respect for the views we differ on - and find a common ground on which to push forward those ideals that we all share. This allows for open debate, true discourse, and a combined group that has a clear understanding on what fights they will fight, and why. That is NOT the republican party of today.

The reason you see the "in power" republicans within the party trying to tear down the "reformers" is because they - like so many before them - prefer power over progress. Take my state for example. Our state constitution says senatorial districts are not to divide counties. Yet the legislature (with much republican assistance) defined the districts in a way that insured a certain amount of "red" and "blue" sure thing districts - and to do that they had to divide counties. But when the matter was pursued by citizens who just want the right thing done - both parties co-operated to keep the power status quo.

Its really not a matter of taking back the republican party - or the democrat party either for many older democrats that wonder what has happened to their voices as well. Instead - its about taking back OUR country - red and blue, green and whatever colors the other parties use.

To do that requires one thing - and that is something that neither "D" nor "R" parties are willing to allow - a removal of the party system. If a person didn't have a R or D beside their name - then they would have to deal solely on issues. Get truly open ballot access and real monetary reform - and you would see a country that spoke with ONE voice on what it feels are important.

Specifically on ballot access - prove your eligible for office - and your name is on the ballot if you put yourself forward. You want to fix it so that the rich and powerful don't buy their way into office? Simple - political contributions can come from only one source - people eligible to vote in the locale/district/state that your running in. Limit the contributions of each individual to $100 or $1000 TOTAL.
So if your running for govenor of Tennessee - you cant take money from anywere but the PEOPLE of Tennessee - No "Political Action Committees" because they cannot vote. No Unions, No Corporations, No Special Interest groups. NO POLITICAL PARTY MONEY EITHER! No Federal matching funds if your running for a federal office. Only the person who goes and pulls the lever - or colors the circle or pushes the button can donate. Every donation has to include name, amount and address - so that it can be auditted for fraud. So you could give 100 bucks to a guy you like 10 times - or one 1000 dollar donation - but after that you can't give money. You could volunteer time.

Level the playing field - so that candidates are ANSWERABLE to those they vote for, not special interest groups or a specific political party.

Now - how many think that the 2 parties in question would ever really be willing to give up their power to allow the people to speak?

[Digital_Trucker]

Specifically on ballot access - prove your eligible for office - and your name is on the ballot if you put yourself forward. You want to fix it so that the rich and powerful don't buy their way into office? Simple - political contributions can come from only one source - people eligible to vote in the locale/district/state that your running in. Limit the contributions of each individual to $100 or $1000 TOTAL.
So if your running for govenor of Tennessee - you cant take money from anywere but the PEOPLE of Tennessee - No "Political Action Committees" because they cannot vote. No Unions, No Corporations, No Special Interest groups. NO POLITICAL PARTY MONEY EITHER! No Federal matching funds if your running for a federal office. Only the person who goes and pulls the lever - or colors the circle or pushes the button can donate. Every donation has to include name, amount and address - so that it can be auditted for fraud. So you could give 100 bucks to a guy you like 10 times - or one 1000 dollar donation - but after that you can't give money. You could volunteer time.

Level the playing field - so that candidates are ANSWERABLE to those they vote for, not special interest groups or a specific political party.
That's the best plan I've seen for a real government of the people.:up:

Now - how many think that the 2 parties in question would ever really be willing to give up their power to allow the people to speak?
Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that one:yep:

[SteamWake]

Good post Schoneboom. I thought the Jesus freaks made up 95% of the GOP though? I mean who else is voting for republicans besides those with big business interests?

Good lord.. talk about steriotyping.

[subchaser12]

Renoldus Magnus talked about how the strength of the republican party was its diversity.

This made me chuckle. There is nothing diverse about the republican party at all. Look at the McCain crowd on election night, it was nothing but 40 something and over white people. Look at Obama's, young, old, white, black, latin, asian, arab and you name it.

You can try and deny it, but it is no secret the republicans are nothing but christian white people. The liberals use your, how shall I put this "dated" views on other races and cultures to their advantage. Liberals courted the African American community and the hispanics. Republicans need to get on board and realize that everyone isn't heterosexual or white.

[CaptainHaplo]

Subchaser - you show your ignorance with that statement. The fact is the republican party has always been willing and open to diversity. McCain is not representative of the entire party - had you followed the election you would have heard how much the BASE didn't care for him. You bring up race - lets deal with that. Fact is that percentage wise - more REPUBLICANS voted for Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Here is the breakdown:

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)[/URL]
By party

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)[URL="http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/"] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)
By party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) in the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Yarborough) of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower) of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas))
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd) of West Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia) opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_Hickenlooper) of Iowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa), Barry Goldwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater) of Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona), Edwin L. Mechem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_L._Mechem) of New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico), Milward L. Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milward_L._Simpson) of Wyoming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming), and Norris H. Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norris_H._Cotton) of New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire) opposed the measure)But while the FACTS show that it was the DEMOCRAT party that wanted to DENY equal rights to anyone who wasn't Caucasian, "non white" people are constantly told that its the "EVIL REPUBLICANS" who want to keep them on the plantation or working as illegal slave labor.

The only thing "Dated" about true republican views (and this thus excludes the party in its current incarnation) is that we expect 3 things. Personal Responsibility from each person, Respect for your fellows, and belief in following our Constitution.

Obama pulled together disparate people - I don't deny that. But to claim that a view of the campaigns on election night is a picture that must define the entire country is ludicrous.

So while you talk "dated" - I talk FACT - we have never been about cutting people out of the picture - that would have been the liberals who even now try their best to figure out how to make more minorities DEPEND on them so they can be assured of their support.

[subchaser12]

The fact is the republican party has always been willing and open to diversity.



:rotfl:

Republicans willing and open to diversity? Yeah as long as you are not poor, black, gay, an unmarried mother, an immigrant, divorced or not in the chrisitan family of faiths. If you are non of the above you will be welcomed with open arms in republicanville.

Damn, still makes me laugh hard everytime I read the words "republican, open and diversity" used together. I'm not going to waste time debating a known fact that blacks aren't republicans. Gays aren't welcome either. The right wing has also been crying about Mexican immigrants over the past few years. Many immigrant families have been put thru hell over the past few years with the immigration crack down brought on by right wing crying voters. Yet you then talk about all you care about is "family", yeah right, you only care about your white middle class family.

Ok then, I'll play your game, it's funny. I want to see if I can get you to talk up right-wing diversity some more. haha. You blame McCain for not having black people in his crowd. Ok, what about Bush 1 and 2? Their supporters look to be very white to me.

:rotfl:

[1480]

Subchaser12, sterotyping a party is also bigotry:

http://online.logcabin.org/about/mission.html
Gay & Lesbian GOP organization.


http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.aboutnbra&x=9451690
Black GOP organization.

http://www.rnha.org/about_us.htm
Hispanic GOP organization.

http://www.rjchq.org/
Jewish GOP organization.

http://muslimrepublicans.net/
Muslim GOP website.

A pretty diverse portfolio.

[Digital_Trucker]

1480, don't confuse subchaser with things like that. He might blow a gasket :yep:

[subchaser12]

1480, don't confuse subchaser with things like that. He might blow a gasket :yep:

Speaking of confusion, who here is dreading the crowd on inaguration day? I sure am, but at least I got a good hotel.

As for 1480s websites. I can find a website dedicated to albino Russian toaster worshippers. That isn't saying much. I never said you can't find a flaming homosexual black republican, but they are so miniscul in number they are only weak tokens. We all know where the right stands in race relations. The election sure cleared it up.

My favorite preacher in the world happens to be a black republican. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejTmistHFw0

[August]

flaming homosexual black republican, but they are so miniscul in number they are only weak tokens

Really? How many flaming homosexual black democrats can you name? And what would you consider minuscule?

[subchaser12]

How many flaming homosexual black democrats can you name?

Obviously you never get coffee from Starbucks. :lol:

[August]

How many flaming homosexual black democrats can you name?
Obviously you never get coffee from Starbucks. :lol:

So I guess the answer is no then. :yep:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Fact is that percentage wise - more REPUBLICANS voted for Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats.
That's half the story. You left out afterwords the GOP implementation of their "Southern Strategy", which had much more of an effect shaping the present GOP than did supporting Civil Rights legislation in greater numbers than Dems.

Disclaimer: I am not a member of any political party.

PD

[1480]

1480, don't confuse subchaser with things like that. He might blow a gasket :yep:

Speaking of confusion, who here is dreading the crowd on inaguration day? I sure am, but at least I got a good hotel.

As for 1480s websites. I can find a website dedicated albino Russian toaster worshippers. That isn't saying much. I never said you can't find a flaming homosexual black republican, but they are so miniscul in number they are only weak tokens. We all know where the right stands in race relations. The election sure cleared it up.

My favorite preacher in the world happens to be a black republican. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejTmistHFw0

A quick lesson in logic 101: You support an argument with proofs, not unsubstantiated generalizations. You stated that the GOP is made up of white christians and "Jesus freaks." I refuted your statement with facts. You attempt to attack the facts with another unsubstantiated statement. BTW I did google your rhetorical example and got this as the first hit:


The BFI Companion to Eastern European and Russian Cinema ...... Bishop T.D. Jakes Presents "Woman Thou Art Loosed" Worship 2002 · The Bishop's Wife ...


Last but not least, the only people I ever met that use the word "token" in the context you have used are closet bigots. :yep: In fact, they also stereotype, use broad generalizations and cannot support any argument with proof.

[subchaser12]

A quick lesson in logic 101: You support an argument with proofs, not unsubstantiated generalizations. You stated that the GOP is made up of white christians and "Jesus freaks." I refuted your statement with facts. You attempt to attack the facts with another unsubstantiated statement. BTW I did google your rhetorical example and got this as the first hit:



How cute, a guy who has a job with his name on his shirt attempting to be condescending. There is no logic 101 class, if you went to college you would know this. I'm not surprised someone of your caliber opted for one of the last careers in this country that does not require higher education. I love blue collar know it alls, if only you could translate that knowledge into a higher tax bracket.

We don't need a scientific study to show that blacks don't get much love in the republican party. If the right wing had their way blacks would be chained up in the back yard and women would still be in the kitchen. I can submit it to the Center for Obvious Research but they are probably working on the latest "pretty tall people make more money than short fat ugly people" study for 2008.

Why was there not one black person in McCains crowd? Not even one? Why was Oprah and Jesse Jackson in tears on November 2nd. Let me guess, they were sad about McLame losing. I wonder how many Rush Limbaugh listeners are black, haha. :rotfl:

You amuse me. Look at the map, only the most redneck backwoods states in the country voted for McLame. West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee. I mean why not just put a banjo and a rebel flag next to McLame's name.

[1480]

A quick lesson in logic 101: You support an argument with proofs, not unsubstantiated generalizations. You stated that the GOP is made up of white christians and "Jesus freaks." I refuted your statement with facts. You attempt to attack the facts with another unsubstantiated statement. BTW I did google your rhetorical example and got this as the first hit:



How cute, a guy who has a job with his name on his shirt attempting to be condescending. There is no logic 101 class, if you went to college you would know this. I'm not surprised someone of your caliber opted for one of the last careers in this country that does not require higher education. I love blue collar know it alls, if only you could translate that knowledge into a higher tax bracket.

We don't need a scientific study to show that blacks don't get much love in the republican party. If the right wing had their way blacks would be chained up in the back yard and women would still be in the kitchen. I can submit it to the Center for Obvious Research but they are probably working on the latest "pretty tall people make more money than short fat ugly people" study for 2008.

Why was there not one black person in McCains crowd? Not even one? Why was Oprah and Jesse Jackson in tears on November 2nd. Let me guess, they were sad about McLame losing. I wonder how many Rush Limbaugh listeners are black, haha. :rotfl:

You amuse me. Look at the map, only the most redneck backwoods states in the country voted for McLame. West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee. I mean why not just put a banjo and a rebel flag next to McLame's name.


Listen son. You attempt to belittle me and my career. Fine. Once you grow up and can have an intelligent argument with the grown ups, I'll be waiting. Yes, I did go to college and currently working on my masters. Back in the late 80's they did call it Introduction to Logic, PHILO 102. When you stop stereotyping and being ignorant then we can talk.

[subchaser12]

Listen son. You attempt to belittle me and my career. Fine. Once you grow up and can have an intelligent argument with the grown ups, I'll be waiting. Yes, I did go to college and currently working on my masters. Back in the late 80's they did call it Introduction to Logic, PHILO 102. When you stop stereotyping and being ignorant then we can talk.

That was too easy. I like how you dropped the posts topic altogether to put all your defenses on your ego. So predictable of your kind. You can dish it out but you can't take it. When I grow up huh? Oh yes, everyone who won't take your crap is obviously not a grownup. Name calling and snarky comments did not pan out for you so far in this post, yet you do the same thing again. By definition a fool does the same action expecting different results. Bad news for you big mouth, I unfortunately have way too many cops in my family. I know your routine front to back and I know where to hit where it hurts. I don't have a problem with cops, if you look at the post I had been cutting you slack and not responding to you earlier in the thread. You know how it goes though, we can do this the easy way or the hard way and you just seem intent to keep swinging. :|\\

[1480]

Listen son. You attempt to belittle me and my career. Fine. Once you grow up and can have an intelligent argument with the grown ups, I'll be waiting. Yes, I did go to college and currently working on my masters. Back in the late 80's they did call it Introduction to Logic, PHILO 102. When you stop stereotyping and being ignorant then we can talk.

That was too easy. You can dish it out but you can't take it. When I grow up huh? Oh yes, everyone who won't take your crap is obviously not a grownup. Name calling and snarky comments did not pan out for you so far in this post, yet you do the same thing again. By definition a fool does the same action expecting different results. Bad news for you big mouth, I unfortunately have way too many cops in my family. I know your routine front to back and I know where to hit where it hurts. I don't have a problem with cops, if you look at the post I had been cutting you slack and not responding to you earlier in the thread. You know how it goes though, we can do this the easy way or the hard way and you just seem intent to keep swinging. :|\\

Subchaser, now I know who you are. Your father the "police chief" throwing ni&&ers down stairs in the 80's, the guy who is a workout king, has his sugar mamma supporting him. I forgot your last handle as you were banned. Again, I never once insulted you, just your flawed line of reasoning. If you sat back and thought about it, you may learn something. Something other than hate....:up:


Took me a bit but whats up FlamingBoat. See you aren't satisfied that your messiah won, you have to impress it upon everyone else. Why did you take on a new persona?

[Digital_Trucker]

Subchaser12, you came here a while back to ask what the arming distance was on torpedos, creating a two page thread with lots of information (that you never bothered to acknowledge) and all you've done since is blather about what a great world it is now that the "rednecks" of the world have been put in their place. You spend most of your time attempting to belittle anyone who dares to see things in a different light. Yet, after all this childishness, you demand respect. You demean a man's profession, all but call anyone who disagrees with you a fool, yet you can't answer a simple question with a fact instead of some cock-eyed rant. Please, in some sort of logical statement, explain why we should pay you any attention?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Come on subchaser, no need to step down to personal insults. Especially insulting a serving cop. I believe military personnel wear their names on their shirts as well, going to insult them next?:down:

And a mature response from 1480, BTW.:up:

PD

[1480]

For anyone who is curious:


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=142989

subchaser12 is our beloved flamingboat.

[nikimcbee]

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, his show producer is black (and always has been). He gets a fair number of black callers all the time.

[nikimcbee]

flaming homosexual black republican, but they are so miniscul in number they are only weak tokens

Really? How many flaming homosexual black democrats can you name? And what would you consider minuscule?

I can think of one white KKK senate member...Democrat.

Japanese relocation camps.... Democrat idea.


http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3133/rockytankac3.jpg (http://imageshack.us/?x=my6&myref=http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php)

just for 1480:

The militia has arrived.:up:

[Takeda Shingen]

Subchaser12, you came here a while back to ask what the arming distance was on torpedos, creating a two page thread with lots of information (that you never bothered to acknowledge) and all you've done since is blather about what a great world it is now that the "rednecks" of the world have been put in their place. You spend most of your time attempting to belittle anyone who dares to see things in a different light. Yet, after all this childishness, you demand respect. You demean a man's profession, all but call anyone who disagrees with you a fool, yet you can't answer a simple question with a fact instead of some cock-eyed rant. Please, in some sort of logical statement, explain why we should pay you any attention?
Well-said. Some vermin are better left ignored.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh - and lets all note how this has become a demonstration of how the left works - if they cant win in the "arena of ideas" - they resort to calling us names like racist- yet when the facts are laid out - they ignore them. I thought about it for a long time - and I am actually happy Obama won. People want things better - NOW. He promised the moon - and won't be able to deliver. He can't create an incident to see himself thru - like they claim 9/11 was - the American people are too tired of the constant "conflict" already. They say Bush was a failure and will go down as the worst president ever - lets see what they say in 4 years.....

[SteamWake]

Havent you guys learned by now to quit feeding the troll :damn:

[1480]

Havent you guys learned by now to quit feeding the troll :damn:

Feeding or baiting???? :rotfl:

[Digital_Trucker]

Havent you guys learned by now to quit feeding the troll :damn:
You know, it's one of those things that we know we're not supposed to do, but just can't help ourselves:oops: Especially when the troll is so entertaining (in a train-wreck sorta way).

[caspofungin]

this has become a demonstration of how the left works - if they cant win in the "arena of ideas" - they resort to calling us names like racist- yet when the facts are laid out - they ignore them.

i would've said both sides work like this. in the media at least, volume always wins out over content.

[Sailor Steve]

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, his show producer is black (and always has been). He gets a fair number of black callers all the time.
Not to mention two of his regular stand-ins - Columnist Thomas Sowell and economics professor Walter E. Williams.

I normally take one or two of the righties here to task for bad debate tactics, but this time I agree that 1480 is right on the money, and Subchaser 12 hasn't made a reasonable argument yet - just cast aspersions and tried to start a flame war.

[August]

For anyone who is curious:


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=142989

subchaser12 is our beloved flamingboat.

I think you are right. The writing style is very similar and of course the idiocy is a spot on match.

[1480]

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, his show producer is black (and always has been). He gets a fair number of black callers all the time.
Not to mention two of his regular stand-ins - Columnist Thomas Sowell and economics professor Walter E. Williams.

I normally take one or two of the righties here to task for bad debate tactics, but this time I agree that 1480 is right on the money, and Subchaser 12 hasn't made a reasonable argument yet - just cast aspersions and tried to start a flame war.


I'd rather be a bad de bater than ever be accused of being a master bater!

[Sailor Steve]

[I'd rather be a bad de bater than ever be accused of being a master bater!
I thought you liked to fish.:rotfl:

[1480]

[I'd rather be a bad de bater than ever be accused of being a master bater!
I thought you liked to fish.:rotfl:

Only for pink snapper......:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[nikimcbee]

http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/14/peter_sellers_inspector_clouseau_pi.jpg

[1480]

Quit it McBee! Nearly lost a mouthful of adult beverage :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: