"A Few Years Ago This Guy Would Have Been Getting Us Coffee"

@OmSigDAVID,

You promote RINOs?

Which ones are you promoting today?

@parados,

parados wrote:

You promote RINOs?

I do what I can to make the best of the available situation.
I was not too thrilled with the Bushes,
but the alternatives were more authoritarian.

parados wrote:

Which ones are you promoting today?

Just Romney.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Yea, pretty close, but not 1OO%;
government is good for coining money and for co-ordinating wars.

I think this has been suggested before, but:

move to Somolia. It's pretty wide open.

Lots of war also.

0 Replies

What have the Somalis ever done to you?

(He wouldn't want to go there, those folks shoot back!)

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David wrote:

Quote:

With something like avoiding that sort of thing in mind,
I try to promote Barry Goldwater types of GOP candidates.

Barry Goldwater, who once was seen as about as far right as an American could be, couldn't get nominated by today's GOP.
Jeb Bush just made the same comment about his father and, holy cow of holy cows, Ronald Reagan.

Why? Because starting with Jeb's brother, (you know who- the biggest failure as a President in our history) the GOP has fought for and won the title of The Party of NO. Not out of principle, out of the odd notion that you should run a government as incompetently as possible, never raise anybody's taxes all while prosecuting two unpaid for wars.

The only part of Jeb's statement I disagreed with is he blames Obama for being too partisan in his first two years in office, as if the GOP was pleading for a reconciliation after blocking out the Democrats every chance they got over the previous eight years.

(You also remember the screaming town meetings wherein radical conservatives, later to be know as Tea Partiers, shouted down any Democrat or Republican brave enough to speak.)

So, David, just out of curiosity, who?
Who, in your opinion, are the candidates who both rise to the level of statesmanship that Goldwater, Reagan and H.W. Bush portrayed AND are seen as acceptable candidates for today's GOP?

Start with all the people who just ran for President against Romney, any of them your guys ? (or Michelle Bachman??)

And if so, why didn't they get the nomination??

Joe(I knew a guy who didn't vote for someone once because that someone's flag lapel pin wasn't put on straight.)Nation

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Regardless of Trumps showmanship, Romney has accepted Trump's endorsement because he needs all the endorsements he can get of "good people."

Quote:

"You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in," Romney said. "But I need to get 50.1% or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people."

source

1 Reply

@revelette,

i can't help who Romney considers "good people"

of course in my mind, no good person would debase themselves by becoming a politician, so Mitt seems to back me on the Trump not a politician thing

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Asshole...

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I think on the whole DD is right about the general attitude and possible motive of Finn's thread of basically wanting to divide and conquer.

However, I have sort of sensed that Bill Clinton hasn't exactly liked Obama since the campaign. Maybe I got that impression from the news, but nevertheless, the impression has stuck and I haven't liked Bill Clinton since; when before I was always a big supporter.

You must also think I am either an incorrigible liar or an insidious GOP operative.

Either way the paranoia and/or invective is breath-taking.

Or is that you need to secure your place in the tribe by echoing DD's tripe?

The notion that I am trying to conquer on A2K is beyond absurd.

To paraphrase Randy Newman: You mean nothing, you mean less to me
than the lowiliest cactus flower, or the humblest yucca tree

You (meaning the A2L Left), don't represent anything even approaching a force or even a bloc. The solidarity of your collective thought is about as significant as a housefly's fart.

This may be news to you, but the threads on A2K don't get national attention.

Let me repeat one last time: I am only interested in the opinions of fellow political junkies as to what might be behind the Clinton apostasy.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

You, obviously don't appreciate how ridiculous this comment is.

Since you apparently self-identify with the wonderful Democrats, how do you reconcile the calumny of your post?

Just stating the facts?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

IRFRANK wrote:

Good response Joe. I am finding myself agreeing with you a lot lately. I've learned to read all the posts before replying and your's often are what I intended.

The conclusion I've come to is that most Democrats are sincerely interested in making things better, and sometimes disagree on how to do that. Most Republicans are only interested in gaining power, so it's better if they don't disagree with each other, or at least appear that way.

It would be more accurate to say that most Democrats are interested in "making things better" through the action and intervention of government, while most Republicans place more value on individuual freedom and initiative and less interference by government. (Unhappily "Progressives" usually fail to account for the adverse side effects that result from their organized interference.)

There are many options for more government intervention and interference in our lives and many diverse ways to use government to pick winners and payoff your constiturents, while there are far fewer options for making government do less.

Freedom is better.

Gosh. Here's one of those noxious conservative putting things in a far more rational context than the poster to who he responded.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

and he wasn't a dick about it.

you should take some notes, finny...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Ditto

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm curious why specifically you think georgeob1's post is in a more rational context than IRFRanks. Be specific. I can only see that you think it's more rational because you agree with george not because what he actually said was more rational than Frank.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quite simple actually.

George frames the issue in terms of two groups of people who have opposite and competing world views, while Frank frames it as Good Guys vs Bad Guys.

You don't believe that Manichean stuff do you Parados?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I meant divide and conqure as a general political tactic. Trying to split up various leading democrat supporters into separate camps to take away votes from Obama. gungasnake does the same thing lots of times. And no I don't think you are working officially as a conservative activist. Never once have I thought these threads get national attention. I seriously doubt you are actually interested in what people think of Clinton's supposed apostasy, but if you were, I think he just don't really like Obama for whatever reason, but he will support him for the sake of the party and in the end, that is all that matters.

btw--George don't frame things any nicer than anyone else, in fact he is kinda a condescending fellow often in the wrong. Threw in a zinger about things going wrong with good intentions under progressive idealogies, not mentioning what has been going terribly wrong with conservative idealogies these last few decades, regardless of Obama being in office, we still have the same low taxes as we did under Bush and programs have been slashed both local and federally.

2 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I seriously doubt you are actually interested in what people think of Clinton's supposed apostasy, but if you were, I think he just don't really like Obama for whatever reason, but he will support him for the sake of the party and in the end, that is all that matters.

and that, in a nutshell is what is wrong with part politics, he should only support him if the support is warranted, not for the sake of the party

1 Reply

@djjd62,

As a matter of principle your right, but as a political matter, unless you don't want to ever have any progress, you got to give a little. For instance, I do not even support Obama on everything. I don't agree with almost all his decisions regarding Israel and Palestine and the UN, I disagree with his decisions regarding detainees and their right to sue and whole host of issues in the same line. But I do agree with his positions domestically and I don't Romney's stated positions. I would imagine Clinton agrees with Obama a whole lot more than any other other republican candidate, hence his support. If Hillary was running, of course, he would support her and have all kinds of things to say about Obama for conservative to get all excited about.

0 Replies

Coffee is my favorite beverage.

0 Replies

@revelette,

Well, you're seriously wrong.

I am interested in what people actually believe was behind Clinton's trips off the reservation.

He seems to be better heeled of late, but my bet is that before the election he'll go wandering again.

Its pretty much a given that he doesn't like Obama, and that may be all that's behind his comments,but I doubt it.

There is support and there is support, and his long time followers know the difference.

Speculation is that the Clintonistas are promoting the idea of taking a pass on the convention in Charlotte, and that if the Obama Camp doesn't make those who have already publicly announced their intention not to go pay, the number of no-shows will increase.

Not good for re-election chances if members of your party are ducking your re-coronation.

As for the difference between the replies of George and Frank, I've already explained my thinking. If you don't agree, so be it.

1 Reply

"A Few Years Ago This Guy Would Have Been Getting Us Coffee"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know