AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

That is a crowning irony--that conservatives, so prone to wrap themselves in the flag, are willing to pay astronomical sums for foreign wars, but begrudge any domestic spending.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

c. They continue to complain about Obama's federal deficit, but didn't complain when Bush spent billions/trillions; wrong. (bunch of hypocrites)
d. They complain about every initiative brought forward by Obama, but hasn't provided one solution to the many problems we face today; wrong.

THESE ALLEGATIONS OF YOURS ARE FALSE! THIS IS WHAT IS TRUE!
c. Conservatives in increasing numbers began complaining about Bush's domestic spending caused federal deficits back in 2002 and thereafter. Conservatives during Gore's 2000 election campaign and Kerry's 2004 election campaign thought Gore and Kerry if elected would have done far worse than Bush has done. I personally didn't fully wise up about Bush until 2007 when the rate of Bush's domestic spending increases began to dramtically accelerate. For me, Bush granting Obama's request for the TARP spending was a final outrage. Both Bush and Obama are to blame for the TARP spending. After Obama was inaugurated the rate of increase of federal spending began to accelerate at a far greater rate than under Bush.

d. Republicans have brought forward several alternative proposals to those of Obama. In particular, they have proposed a far lower spending budget, and a continuation of Bush's current tax system. They proposed an ending to inadequately secured loans, having recognized that such loans are the principal cause of today's recession. They have proposed a system of mostly private health care insurance that is far less costly to participants and tax payers. They repeatedly opposed Obama's Stimulus Plan and instead have continually recommended far less expensive private bankruptcy rather than very expensive government funded bailouts that are ending with far more expensive bankruptcy.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Hardly.

The cost of GWOT is a mere drop in the bucket when you
compare it to what Obama has spent and plans to spend.

0 Replies

Hey there's a picture of Sarah Palin at the bottom of the page.

I'd sooner have a beer with her than with George Bush.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Parados, Bush won on impeaching Clinton!

No, he didn't. In any way.

Cycloptichorn

Yes he did, in one way.

0 Replies

@McTag,

I'll drink to that Cool

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Parados, Bush won on impeaching Clinton!

Even YOU can't believe that one ican.

Bush never once said he was running to impeach Clinton. I doubt Fox or okie will even back you up on that statement.

Right! "Bush never once said he was running to impeach Clinton."

BUT Bush did run and win AFTER Clinton had been impeached by the Republican House and the Republican Senate trial resulted in a decision not to remove Clinton. So I conclude that Clinton's previous impeachment by the Republican House did not preclude Bush subsequently winning the 2000 election.Consequently, I bet that impeaching Obama will not preclude a Republican House majority being elected in 2010.

1 Reply

Was there supp0sed to be some logic in there somewhere? Clinton was ineligible to run in 2000; Clinton was not relevant to the 2000 election.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta, I was challenging the assertion that impeaching Obama would cost many Congressional Republican candidates their elections in 2010.

I agree: "Clinton was ineligible to run in 2000; Clinton was not relevant to the 2000 election."

I allege that Obama's impeachment--if it were to occur-- would not be relevant to the results of the 2010 Congressional elections.

I want Obama impeached because he is violating "the supreme law of the land," the Constitution.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

BUT Bush did run and win AFTER Clinton had been impeached by the Republican House and the Republican Senate trial resulted in a decision not to remove Clinton. So I conclude that Clinton's previous impeachment by the Republican House did not preclude Bush subsequently winning the 2000 election.Consequently, I bet that impeaching Obama will not preclude a Republican House majority being elected in 2010.

What are you saying, Ican? If you can convince a Democrat majority to impeach a Democrat president, then that somehow lays the groundwork for a Republican electoral victory in 2010? How's that plan going so far?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Setanta, I was challenging the assertion that impeaching Obama would cost many Congressional Republican candidates their elections in 2010.

Who made that assertion?

I only said that running on the platform of impeaching Obama if elected wouldn't get many candidates elected to seats currently held by Democrats

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Setanta, I was challenging the assertion that impeaching Obama would cost many Congressional Republican candidates their elections in 2010.

I agree: "Clinton was ineligible to run in 2000; Clinton was not relevant to the 2000 election."

I allege that Obama's impeachment--if it were to occur-- would not be relevant to the results of the 2010 Congressional elections.

Ican: If you get a bunch of lunatic conservatives and Republicans calling for Obama's impeachment based on your list of laughable charges, the Republicans will lose all credibility with "clear thinking" Americans (a category that does not include the Americans who glue their ears to right-wing talk radio and their eyes to the Fox fake news channel). How does outright lunacy and the concomitant loss of credibility help the Republican party to regain majority status?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, I am not saying: "If you can convince a Democrat majority to impeach a Democrat president, then that somehow lays the groundwork for a Republican electoral victory in 2010."

I am saying that impeaching Obama will not preclude a Republican House majority being elected in 2010.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=preclude&x=27&y=9http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Main Entry: pre·clude
...
Function: transitive verb
...
1 archaic : to put a barrier before : shut up : HINDER, STOP, IMPEDE, CLOSE
2 : to shut out or obviate by anticipation : prevent or hinder by necessary consequence or implication : deter action of, access to, or enjoyment of : make ineffectual <the adoption of one choice often necessarily precludes the use of another -- C.I.Glicksberg> <engagements ... preclude the principal from extending this trip -- D.L.Gales>
synonym see PREVENT

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra, I am not saying: "If you can convince a Democrat majority to impeach a Democrat president, then that somehow lays the groundwork for a Republican electoral victory in 2010."

I am saying that impeaching Obama will not preclude a Republican House majority being elected in 2010.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=preclude&x=27&y=9http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Main Entry: pre·clude
...
Function: transitive verb
...
1 archaic : to put a barrier before : shut up : HINDER, STOP, IMPEDE, CLOSE
2 : to shut out or obviate by anticipation : prevent or hinder by necessary consequence or implication : deter action of, access to, or enjoyment of : make ineffectual <the adoption of one choice often necessarily precludes the use of another -- C.I.Glicksberg> <engagements ... preclude the principal from extending this trip -- D.L.Gales>
synonym see PREVENT

Fox is trying to tell you that:

A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero.

B, focusing on doing this before the elections is not likely to lead to MORE Republicans getting elected in 2010; and

C, without more Republicans elected, the chances of impeaching Obama after the 2010 elections are effectively zero.

Therefore, no matter what your true objective is, Fox is correct - you should be focusing on step 1, electing Republicans with Conservative principles, rather than going on and on about electing.

It's like watching someone play chess, who keeps shouting, 'we have to trap the king! The king! He must be trapped, that's what matters!' - the entire match. It's silly to focus on the endgame when your opening is in tatters.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

"clear thinking" Americans (a category that does not include the Americans who glue their ears to right-wing talk radio and their eyes to the Fox fake news channel).

~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.
Your shockingly hysterical post is duly noted!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Therefore, no matter what your true objective is, Fox is correct - you should be focusing on step 1, electing Republicans with Conservative principles, rather than going on and on about electing.

'electing' in the above sentence should read 'impeachment,' sorry

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox is trying to tell you that:

A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero.

B, focusing on doing this before the elections is not likely to lead to MORE Republicans getting elected in 2010; and

C, without more Republicans elected, the chances of impeaching Obama after the 2010 elections are effectively zero.

I understand that Foxfyre is telling me that! I respectfully disagree with Foxfyre that: "A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero."

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fox is trying to tell you that:

A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero.

B, focusing on doing this before the elections is not likely to lead to MORE Republicans getting elected in 2010; and

C, without more Republicans elected, the chances of impeaching Obama after the 2010 elections are effectively zero.

I understand that Foxfyre is telling me that! I respectfully disagree with Foxfyre that: "A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero."

I think you ought to look at the fact that a consensus of both Republicans and Democrats who post in this thread have a very hard time taking that opinion of yours seriously, as there does not seem to be any support whatsoever for doing this amongst either political party.

You didn't answer earlier, when I asked what you are doing to make that impeachment happen. Care to share?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I understand that Foxfyre is telling me that! I respectfully disagree with Foxfyre that: "A, the chances of impeaching Obama before the 2010 elections are effectively zero."

Ican: This mindset not only indicates a lack of "clear thinking," this mindset makes you delusional.

Main Entry: de·lu·sion

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you ought to look at the fact that a consensus of both Republicans and Democrats who post in this thread have a very hard time taking that opinion of yours seriously, as there does not seem to be any support whatsoever for doing this amongst either political party.

I assume your claim about the consensus in this thread is true. Nonetheless, I am not persuaded the current opinion of that consensus is valid. Furthermore, I am not convinced the current opinion of that consensus is unchangeable. I am, however convinced that because Obama is violating "the supreme law of the land," his impeachment is necessary for the survival of America's Constitutional Republic and its rule of law.

You asked: what am I doing to make that impeachment happen? I am attempting to persuade people that Obama must be impeached to ensure the survival of America's Constitutional Republic and its rule of law. I'll let you and the rest of this thread's consensus know how I'm doing by the end of this year.

Obama is helping by continuing to think and do what he thinks and does!

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know