AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

If the Republicans merely campaign on the basis of their disagreements with the Democrats, they will lose more House and Senate seats in 2010. Republican campaign rhetoric devoid of a credible concerted effort to remove Obama from his presidency will not save, much less gain, Republican House and Senate seats. Republican campaign rhetoric without corrective action to back it up is no longer credible to a great many potential Republican voters.

To increase their House and Senate Seats, Republicans must make a credible concerted effort to impeach Obama before the 2010 elections.

Whether or not the Republicans succeed in impeaching Obama with Democrat support before the 2010 elections, will have no effect on the 2010 election results. On the other hand, failure of the Republicans to make a credible concerted effort to impeach Obama prior to the 2010 elections, will cost them more House and Senate seats.

1 Reply

That boy just lives entirely in his own fantasy world.

0 Replies

@parados,

I disagree with your opinion.

I will leave it at that.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Heres a woman that knows what she is talking about:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-4DWJD425c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enowpublic%2Ecom%2Fworld%2Fjanet%2Dcontreras%2Dletter%2Dread%2Dglenn%2Dbeck%2Dfull%2Dtext&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOTQd9xI1k[/youtube]

I had not seen this Okie as I haven't been able to watch much television for the last several days. (We have been having the inside of the house painted.) But all I can say to Janet Contreras is yes, yes, YES! She could be the official spokesperson for MACs everywhere. She summarized all that we MACs have been saying all these months and put everything that has been happening into clear, unequivocable language. We don't have a party in Washington that is representing us at this time.

I wish I could move it to the opening post of the thread. I do fear for her, however, as, like Joe the Plumber, we can expect the administration's surrogate media to go after her and try to take her down.

One thing she probably didn't know about yet but that should have been added to her list is the recent rumble about the President turning all the banking regulation over to the Fed to order, administrate, and enforce. Of everything he has done yet, that might be the most scary.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Heres a woman that knows what she is talking about:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-4DWJD425c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enowpublic%2Ecom%2Fworld%2Fjanet%2Dcontreras%2Dletter%2Dread%2Dglenn%2Dbeck%2Dfull%2Dtext&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOTQd9xI1k[/youtube]

I had not seen this Okie as I haven't been able to watch much television for the last several days. (We have been having the inside of the house painted.) But all I can say to Janet Contreras is yes, yes, YES! She could be the official spokesperson for MACs everywhere. She summarized all that we MACs have been saying all these months and put everything that has been happening into clear, unequivocable language. We don't have a party in Washington that is representing us at this time.

I wish I could move it to the opening post of the thread. I do fear for her, however, as, like Joe the Plumber, we can expect the administration's surrogate media to go after her and try to take her down.

One thing she probably didn't know about yet but that should have been added to her list is the recent rumble about the President turning all the banking regulation over to the Fed to order, administrate, and enforce. Of everything he has done yet, that might be the most scary.

Why is that scary? It isn't as if these banks were doing great under the old regulatory scheme.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There was a regulatory scheme?

0 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Good Point Walter,

YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE.

54% of the voters selected Mr. Obama. Some voted for him as a result of Republican fatigue and mistrust. Some voted for him because they bought into his campaign promise of "change".

What you say is true. I think many of that 54% who voted for Obama did not get what they thought they were being promised. The intellectually honest now admit that. The highly partisan ideologues or Republican-haters don't care and will continue their slavish worship and/or defense of the President no matter what he does. A few attempting to take the high road consider it moral to just stand back and keep their mouths shut. And there are always those who don't have a clue what is happening at all but pretend they do.

But it was the GOP breaking of our trust that cost them the power. I think it it may be futile to attempt to reform the Democrats, but I hope Ms. Contreras is right that the GOP isn't so far gone that they can't be hammered back into some semblance of Republicans again. Otherwise we have a very short time to organize a new party, raise up leaders, and put it into power.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think I am wasting my time on you, ci. I believe Obama is abusing power when he bullies and inserts himself into how businesses are being run, or how bankruptcies are conducted, etc. That should be none of his business as president.

He uses the stimulus money to intimidate people into doing his bidding, including state and local governments, businesses, whoever is in his way. One of his pet practices is intimidating with our money that he is giving away to insure entities reward his union friends and punish businesses, which is an abuse of power.

This is merely your opinion, you have no real factual information to back this up.

I think you will find that in the cases of state governments vs. stimulus monies, the legislatures of various states with Republican governors over-rode their governor and decided to take the money. There's nothing inappropriate about that at all.

Quote:

We have heard stories of banks being arm twisted to take stimulus money, or else. That is an abuse of power.

Amazing. Surely you recall that this took place under Bush, not Obama. It was Hank Paulson who engineered the handout of TARP funds, not Obama or his administration.

Quote:

I believe he is abusing power in bringing the work of the Census Bureau under his power instead of Commerce, plus we learn ACORN volunteers will do Census work, that is a huge abuse of power.

Obama has the right to put the Census under the purview of whatever section of the executive branch he likes. What's the abuse of power there? Oh yeah, it put Gregg's panties in a twist. That's not abusing power.

As for ACORN, they are as innocent of crimes as Bush is; neither has been shown to be guilty of any crime in court. So there is no reason they shouldn't be used along with hundreds of other agencies.

Quote:

Creation of all manner of czars that are not under congressional oversight is an abuse of power. Just one example of this is dictating the pay of people working in the private sector, that is a clear abuse of power that should not belong to him, not without congressional oversight.

Idiocy. The 'czars' merely oversee the Administration's efforts in areas which are already under the control of the Exec. branch, and no more or less subject to oversight than the same agencies were before they were created. It doesn't change the admin's power one bit.

As for the 'pay in the private sector,' who is it you think they are regulating the pay on - that has not taken a boatload of your and my money? It is those companies who have come begging for cash that have gotten restrictions. And we have the perfect right to do this.

Quote:

He is now in process of overhauling the financial world and changing how things are done by the Federal Reserve, and probably giving more power to the Treasury Department. Among the new ideas is a consumer protection agency, another huge boondoggle of a bureaucracy that in my opinion is an abuse of power, to exercise powers the administration should not have.

There's no evidence that this is an 'abuse of power.' The financial sector obviously is due for a regulatory overhaul, or maybe you forget how they collapsed last year, due entirely to their own greed and idiotic short-term investments?

You really don't know what you are talking about, but instead just pick items from right-wing websites and call them 'abuses' with no research on your part.

Quote:

We learn that he is firing with likely little or no justification an investigator into Americorp corruption, that happens to involve friends of his. That is an abuse of power.

There actually was quite a bit of justification, but you'd have to look into the case to know that.

Quote:

These are only a few of probably a longer list that could be compiled. We clearly have a man out of control, a man that thinks he is smarter than he is, and thinks he should have control over far more than what rightfully belongs to a president.

More accurately, what we have here is a poster on A2K which is out of control, thinks he is smarter than he is, and never once said **** about Bush's abuse of powers, signing statements, breaking the law, or allowing people to be literally abused to death. You lack credibility, Okie, and your shallow understanding of issues doesn't help that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

In other news, every time you talk about wasting money and how our government should be more efficient, remember to think of reforming the Republican party -

Quote:

Republicans angry over what they regarded as mistreatment by the majority Democrats retaliated by demanding roll call votes 52 times on one bill, a $64 billion spending bill for law enforcement and science programs next year.

They asked for votes on some two dozen amendments, even noncontroversial ones that passed unanimously. Then they asked for revotes. Then they demanded votes on whether they could vote for a third time. Once they ran out of amendments they came up with a couple more revisions to the bill they could vote on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_votes

The House Republicans wasted thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of your tax dollars yesterday, on nothing. On votes they knew they were going to lose. They use every parliamentary trick possible for the express purpose of wasting time. There's no justification for this, other than childish petulance on their part.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

If the Republicans merely campaign on the basis of their disagreements with the Democrats, they will lose more House and Senate seats in 2010. Republican campaign rhetoric devoid of a credible concerted effort to remove Obama from his presidency will not save, much less gain, Republican House and Senate seats. Republican campaign rhetoric without corrective action to back it up is no longer credible to a great many potential Republican voters.

To increase their House and Senate Seats, Republicans must make a credible concerted effort to impeach Obama before the 2010 elections.

Whether or not the Republicans succeed in impeaching Obama with Democrat support before the 2010 elections, will have no effect on the 2010 election results. On the other hand, failure of the Republicans to make a credible concerted effort to impeach Obama prior to the 2010 elections, will cost them more House and Senate seats.

Again, Ican, you have to have a verifiable crime that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that would stand up under our current legal and social understanding of what that looks like. At this time, the "Founders intent" or their understanding (or your understanding) of what the Constitution says simply won't support identification of such a crime, at least as it will be interpreted now.

We must have a President, Congress, and national leaders that can persuade the people of the truth of what they have lost in personal freedoms and power and teach them how to take that back in order to restore America to its former strengths and possibilities.

You go after the President on any issue that they can make look like ideological meanness, opportunism, fanaticism, or idiocy, and you only strengthen the President's hand. You have to have a crime that the people will see as a crime in order to win the people's heart. I simply don't think you can identify one at this time that the people would recognize as 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yankee wrote:

Good Point Walter,

YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE.

54% of the voters selected Mr. Obama. Some voted for him as a result of Republican fatigue and mistrust. Some voted for him because they bought into his campaign promise of "change".

What you say is true. I think many of that 54% who voted for Obama did not get what they thought they were being promised. The intellectually honest now admit that. The highly partisan ideologues or Republican-haters don't care and will continue their slavish worship and/or defense of the President no matter what he does. A few attempting to take the high road consider it moral to just stand back and keep their mouths shut. And there are always those who don't have a clue what is happening at all but pretend they do.

Do you honestly believe the only options are -

1, Turning against Obama and therefore proving you are intellectually honest, or

2, Not turning against Obama, and being branded a 'slavish worshiper,' or

3, being uninformed?

This is more revealing of your opinion as a Republican, than it is reality. You personally claimed to be against many of Bush's actions while still supporting him overall, for years; are you now claiming you were not being intellectually honest by doing so? Or perhaps there is a middle ground of agreement with an elected leader which you didn't see fit to put in here.

Quote:

But it was the GOP breaking of our trust that cost them the power. I think it it may be futile to attempt to reform the Democrats, but I hope Ms. Contreras is right that the GOP isn't so far gone that they can't be hammered back into some semblance of Republicans again. Otherwise we have a very short time to organize a new party, raise up leaders, and put it into power.

You are right on both points: it was your own leaders' corruption and incompetence that cost you power, and you have zero chance at trying to turn the Dems into the same kind of corrupt asses the Republicans have become.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But all I can say to Janet Contreras is yes, yes, YES! She could be the official spokesperson for MACs everywhere. She summarized all that we MACs have been saying all these months and put everything that has been happening into clear, unequivocable language. We don't have a party in Washington that is representing us at this time.

Janet Contreras said that she and her silent majority are coming.
Usually, in other countries you've elections any couple of years.

Foxfyre said that she (and her MACS) don't have a party representing her (them) at this time.
Well, you should have voted for those who follow your line.
Or, become a candidate yourself.

1 Reply

@parados,

It's not only Yankee who has passed judgment on Obama; it's the likes of okie, ican and most of the so-called MACs on these threads.

They all want a miracle; it took Bush to destroy the world's economy in eight years (at least since 2007), and these jokers want Obama to turn that around in less than six (6) months in office.

Their brains have long ago lost any common sense and logic.

0 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee, Have you ever studied macro-economics? I doubt it, because if you had you would understand about the causes of inflation.

You don't have inflation when money (credit) is scarce.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are right on both points: it was your own leaders' corruption and incompetence that cost you power, and you have zero chance at trying to turn the Dems into the same kind of corrupt asses the Republicans have become.

Cycloptichorn

You have to be the most blind partisan that exists anywhere in this country. But then again, nothing would be surprising from a guy that thinks killing a human being is no worse than killing an animal. You are a blind partisan idealogue, whose politics is his religion. And an extremely hypocritical one at that, otherwise you would be equally concerned about Democratic corruption, which you obviously are not.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

What you say is true. I think many of that 54% who voted for Obama did not get what they thought they were being promised.

Do you understand what the word "patience" means? Obama's been in office for (exactly) six months, and he's repeated often that things will get worse before they get better. You want miracles? Go to your church and pray.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are right on both points: it was your own leaders' corruption and incompetence that cost you power, and you have zero chance at trying to turn the Dems into the same kind of corrupt asses the Republicans have become.

Cycloptichorn

You have to be the most blind partisan that exists anywhere in this country.

That's rich coming from you, someone who can't keep basic history straight before laying out accusations of corruption towards Obama. Or who even cares to do so. You don't even make the most basic attempts at due diligence before you post.

Quote:

But then again, nothing would be surprising from a guy that thinks killing a human being is no worse than killing an animal. You are a blind partisan idealogue, whose politics is his religion. And an extremely hypocritical one at that, otherwise you would be equally concerned about Democratic corruption, which you obviously are not.

Sorry that I don't share your Superiority complex, which is really born out of an interior sense of inadequacy.

None of your responses/attacks here has any real legitimacy, it's just you venting at the person who has been revealing the foolish nature of your posts for some time now. I can understand that would be frustrating.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But all I can say to Janet Contreras is yes, yes, YES! She could be the official spokesperson for MACs everywhere. She summarized all that we MACs have been saying all these months and put everything that has been happening into clear, unequivocable language. We don't have a party in Washington that is representing us at this time.

Janet Contreras said that she and her silent majority are coming.
Usually, in other countries you've elections any couple of years.

Foxfyre said that she (and her MACS) don't have a party representing her (them) at this time.
Well, you should have voted for those who follow your line.
Or, become a candidate yourself.

I do vote for those who most closely 'follow my line'. But too many who don't study or understand the issues vote along party lines or based on emotional appeal rather than on how a person is likely to govern. And when you have a corrupt media that blurs the lines so that nobody gets a clear picture, it becomes very difficult to have a lot of honesty and transparency unless you know how to really dig for it.

I never had the money, name recognition, or political connections to run for state or national office. I once was successfully elected to the school board and once was approached about running for the city commission (governing authority), but we were expecting to leave the area so I didn't do that.

But Ms. Contreras is right. She is doing her part by working, paying her bills and taxes, being a responsible productive citizen, and raising her kids to be the same. She expects the government she elects to do their part by following the Constitution, maintaining moral and fiscal integrity, accepting its responsibilities and obligations, and actually governing which does not include turning over the government to czars and others who go through no vetting or onfirmation process, are elected by nobody, and are untouchable by those we elect to represent us.

I'm far too unknown and way too old to run for public office myself at this time. But I recognize quality when I see it and Ms. Contreras is definitely that. We need people who think like her to run for office.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Sigh.

Once again, the 'czars' represent no new power on the part of the Executive branch at all; they just place one person in charge of functions which were already part of the Executive branch.

How hard is this to understand, jeez

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Cop-out! My brother was a complete unknown when he ran for state office, and his average votes won was over 63% for all three terms in the legislature. He won 74% one year.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know