The IGNORANCE Of The US Voters

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

The conservatives have two years to regroup, reassess, and reapply their true conservative beliefs which has gotten away from them in the past few years.

Some good can come from this... a return to true conservative values. [..] While we did lose some good conservatives, we also cleaned out a lot of rubbish. DeWine, Chaffee... let 'em go.

By all means, move even further to the right.

Let the Republican Party become even more conservative. Drift even further from the mainstream of American people.

Field - I dunno - Frist or even Brownback as presidential candidate (Allen wont be available anymore I dont think), rather than a centrist like Giuliani.

It'll make it so much more easy for our side to solidify and expand our gains.

As this guy says:

Quote:

Voters weren't just scratching some kind of unavoidable six-year itch. [..] Nor, we'd suggest, were voters showing that the country is moving farther to the right. You wouldn't think that's an argument that actually needs to be engaged now, but apparently it is. On the day after the election, the Washington Post characterized the United States as a country that "leans slightly right of center," and Mehlman said voters sent a message that Republicans have to hear "loud and clear": "We need to recommit ourselves to conservative reform." [..]

But to say that the voters at large somehow sent a message that they want a more conservative government? Jamison Foser has dismantled that one rather completely at Media Matters. We'll dispense with the argument this way: Name one House or Senate race, Ken, where voters ousted an incumbent Tuesday in favor of someone more conservative.

Link

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

My father and my mother's father were sea captains in the merchant marines. They both piloted supertankers. My fathers piloting license was eleven pages long.

My grandfather piloted tankers through two world wars. He had a supertanker shot down by a german U-boat and was rescued from the middle of the atlantic ocean and was dropped off on the shores of Normandy and survived to tell about it.

Nothing against your father and grandfather ... but no oil tanker had more than 23, 060 twd until 1949 (German tanker C.O Stillmann, built 1928).

The first supertanker ever was built in 1962 (Nissho Maru, 112,000 tdw).

0 Replies

1Co 15:32
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

RexRed wrote:
My father and my mother's father were sea captains in the merchant marines. They both piloted supertankers. My fathers piloting license was eleven pages long.

My grandfather piloted tankers through two world wars. He had a supertanker shot down by a german U-boat and was rescued from the middle of the atlantic ocean and was dropped off on the shores of Normandy and survived to tell about it.

Nothing against your father and grandfather ... but no oil tanker had more than 23, 060 twd until 1949 (German tanker C.O Stillmann, built 1928).

The first supertanker ever was built in 1962 (Nissho Maru, 112,000 tdw).

Between 1874 and 1936, diverse Federal legislation supported maritime training through schoolships, internships at sea and other methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Merchant_Marine_Academy

My grandfather was also in the US navy.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

By all means, move even further to the right.

Let the Republican Party become even more conservative. Drift even further from the mainstream of American people.

Field - I dunno - Frist or even Brownback as presidential candidate (Allen wont be available anymore I dont think), rather than a centrist like Giuliani.

It'll make it so much more easy for our side to solidify and expand our gains.

I'm not sure where you read that, but what I think of when I say returning to true conservative values is fiscal conservatism, less government intrusion, less taxes, strong on defense... I don't really consider that "further right" or "Drift(ing) even further from the mainstream of American people" but feel free to read into that however you want.

0 Replies

Walter,

The ship that was shot down of my grandfathers was a cargo ship in a convoy to England.

Nearly every third ship went down I believe at the time. My grandfather knew his ship was going to be sunk because he was third in line.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

RexRed wrote:
My father and my mother's father were sea captains in the merchant marines. They both piloted supertankers. My fathers piloting license was eleven pages long.

My grandfather piloted tankers through two world wars. He had a supertanker shot down by a german U-boat and was rescued from the middle of the atlantic ocean and was dropped off on the shores of Normandy and survived to tell about it.

Nothing against your father and grandfather ... but no oil tanker had more than 23, 060 twd until 1949 (German tanker C.O Stillmann, built 1928).

The first supertanker ever was built in 1962 (Nissho Maru, 112,000 tdw).

I wondered about "shooting down" a supertanker myself. Planes are shot down. Ships are sunk. I just had a weird vision of a flying ship.

0 Replies

I knew this post was in possibly bad taste but I was just compelled to write it. It was is if the spirit led me to start blasting. (just kidding) Rolling Eyes

I still have a grudge against the "mainstream" media and hollywood in general and I possibly always will.

I was duped for so long by them that I do not trust them one bit anymore. The sublty of their methods are clearly suspect. They go to great legnth to hide their message between the lines because if they just said it it would be exposed for what it is not, truth. Sixty minutes of pure manipulation of the facts.

They prop themselves up as people who are informed but they only see their small myopic view of the world which leaves the rest of the world in the dark about what is really going on. They exploit the silver screen to spread their double talk and back peddling.

It is a disgrace. Instead of the democrats cleaning out the corruption in the republican party how about turning an eye toward their own party? It might repulse them to see themselves for who they really are.

0 Replies

Quote:

I might repulse them to see themselves for who they really are.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

I might repulse them to see themselves for who they really are.

Yea, that to... Smile

For instance the patriot act...

Should we stop monitoring the Hamas terrorist cells in the fifty states calling on Bin Laden?

Harry Reid was gloating over the fact that they almost killed the patriot act.

Have they changed their tune? Suddenly they control the house and the patriot act is ok? Why the change?

Murtha wants the troops in the Philippines? Suddenly they are ok in Iraq?

Can someone please explain this sudden change for me?

This is political corruption and extortion.

0 Replies

The republicans are now happy they did not get rid of the filibuster... :wink:

0 Replies

I did not know that Ed Bradley had died when I mentioned "60 Minutes"...

Ed interviewed Timothy McVeigh, I wonder if he ever interviewed Billy Graham?

Do I really care what McVeigh had to say?

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

but what I think of when I say returning to true conservative values is fiscal conservatism, less government intrusion, less taxes, strong on defense... I don't really consider that "further right" [..] but feel free to read into that however you want.

You're pleading for Republicans to "reapply their true conservative beliefs" and cheer the defeat of moderates like DeWine and Chafee as the "clearing out" of "rubbish" - but it's silly of me to call that "moving to the right"? Uuummmm...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

The republicans are now happy they did not get rid of the filibuster... :wink:

You (typically) display your ignorance. Neither party wants to change the Senate rules which make the filibuster possible, for very obvious reasons. Even if the Republicans had, however, wanted to do so, they never had the votes. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules, and the Republicans have not controlled two-thirds of the vote in the Senate since 1921.

0 Replies

There's an ironic hilarity in Rex complaining about the ignorance of American voters, and then demonstrating that he is himself a sterling example of an ignorant American voter.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

RexRed wrote:
The republicans are now happy they did not get rid of the filibuster... :wink:

You (typically) display your ignorance. Neither party wants to change the Senate rules which make the filibuster possible, for very obvious reasons. Even if the Republicans had, however, wanted to do so, they never had the votes. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules, and the Republicans have not controlled two-thirds of the vote in the Senate since 1921.

Set wrote:
"they never had the votes"

Apparently you don't know what you are talking about Set...

The repubs were at most a couple of votes away and the dems were uncertain if the really had them.

That is the truth not the lie you have fabricated to fit your warped view of the facts.

You have rewritten history to say the repub could not have prevailed.

It is you who are ignorant of what happened.

I didn't even have to look this up I just knew it.

But I will post the link so you can set the record straight with your own faulty recollection.

Now this is from the Washington Post not Fox News so you can't just say MY SOURCES are slanted...

Frist (Tenn.) in recent weeks has declined to speculate on whether he has the votes to change the rule, but his top associates predict he will have them.

Comment:

The dems backed down on their filibustering didn't they?

The post adds...

Some outside activists view Frist's continued postponement of a showdown vote and a compromise proposal as evidence of his uncertainty about the vote count. "The reason they haven't had the vote on it is because Frist doesn't have the votes," said Jennifer Stockman, national co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice, which opposes the rule change.

Comment:
The slanted washington post puts this woman's ignorant statement last she did not know what Frist knew.

But the dems backed down from their filibustering so it would seem they at least perceived Frist had the votes.

The vote was never taken so you can't say Set they did not have the votes for sure so again it is just you grandstanding on an outright lie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702088.html

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You're pleading for Republicans to "reapply their true conservative beliefs" and cheer the defeat of moderates like DeWine and Chafee as the "clearing out" of "rubbish" - but it's silly of me to call that "moving to the right"? Uuummmm...

I'm not asking that the party move further right. I'm hoping that the party merely refocus on their goals. I don't want extreme right candidates as you seem to imply. I only want conservatives that act like conservatives.

It may take longer than 2 years, and we may lose more seats as you suggest, but to think this is the end of the Republican party is laughable... same as those that said the democrates are no longer a viable party.

The republican revolution ran on a platform of conservative values and they won big. Some of them were exposed as hypocrites and dishonest and the people lost faith in them... we all know how that worked out. It wasn't that the people lost faith in those values, they lost faith in the people that were supposed to be forwarding them.

This certainly isn't the first time power has shifted parties and it certainly won't be the last. And while the Dems seem to be happy being "Not the Republicans," good conservative values have won out time and again. That is what I think we need to get back to.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

RexRed wrote:
The republicans are now happy they did not get rid of the filibuster... :wink:

You (typically) display your ignorance. Neither party wants to change the Senate rules which make the filibuster possible, for very obvious reasons. Even if the Republicans had, however, wanted to do so, they never had the votes. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules, and the Republicans have not controlled two-thirds of the vote in the Senate since 1921.

Setanta, I have to agree with Rex on this one.

You can break a filibuster with a simple majority because of a loophole. This is the "nuclear option" that was being threatened by the Republican majority over the Bush judge appointments.

To break a fillibuster in the Senate a member of the majority party can call a point of order. The chair can then rule on it which then goes to a straight majority vote. This way a rule change can be affected with 51 votes.

This certainly can happen and could of happened. When the Democrats threatened to fillibuster judge Alito, the Republicans said that they would use this very loophole (and they very well could have pulled it off).

If you remember it was the Democrats who backed down (with a bit of compromise to the so-called group of 14).

But Rex is right.... rule changes can be affected with 51 votes if the majority party is willing to go through with it.

I also agree with Rex that the Republicans were probably happy they didn't (even though in fact it was the Democrats that mostly stood down).

0 Replies

We can thank the party of the people for reinstituting the draft.

Your beloved ex-marine Murtha and the vile tongued Charley Wrangle are both now in a position to have the draft reinstated as they have wanted.

Maybe the dems should have run on that they might have even gained a few more seats? The public even knows Murtha and Wrangle less than they did Pelosi?

You people who have given the dems this power can thank yourself when "the party of the rich people" (dems) send your un-wealthy 18 year old sons off to Iraq to fight the war the dems have opposed to get power.

Sound a bit twisted? The party has just begun.

http://forums.joeuser.com/index.aspx?forumid=259&aid=129848

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37431&sid=c14d6f8eeb129c62d060d46883e2051b

Charlie just mentioned the draft favorably a days ago (after the election of course) on Fox News.

Fox News, you know, the network the dems don't watch, remember?

My father used to say,

If ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise.

I now know what he meant.

0 Replies

Rex, did you not listen to Wavy Gravy?

0 Replies

The IGNORANCE Of The US Voters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know