For GOP only

[whitesoxfan101]

Like liberals don't despise anybody that doesn't agree with them. :rolly

Oh they do, no question about it. It makes me very sad that in the last 8 years, conservatives have become what they hate and are now completely close minded to anybody different with interest in their party, which is perhaps the biggest reason for the fracture in the party right now.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It's not that hard to grasp. Conservatives dislike anybody who doesn't agree with them (including moderate members of their own party), and are kicking and screaming at the changes in their party going on right now. As a result, McCain, who is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of these changes, is becoming a target for all conservative political people to attack because he's the face of the change and is making conservatives drop left and right in this campaign.

Yeah, that's a small detail people are trying to forget apparently. Yeah, Romney and his all of a sudden conservative ways are closer to Huckabee, but there is no love lost there. I just find it hilarious that Romney was b****ing that Huckabee got in his way, and he ends up dropping out before Huck did.

I just don't get the reasoning behind the hatred. Free and independent thought seems to not be acceptable. i just coined a phrase... "Dictatorship of Thought". you dont agree... off with your head. it just seems wrong.

You dont see Ted Kennedy BLASTING Joe Lieberman. Yet you have the core right declaring war on McCain.

[whitesoxfan101]

I just don't get the reasoning behind the hatred. Free and independent thought seems to not be acceptable. i just coined a phrase... "Dictatorship of Thought". you dont agree... off with your head. it just seems wrong.

You dont see Ted Kennedy BLASTING Joe Lieberman. Yet you have the core right declaring war on McCain.

 

I couldn't agree more, even if it means all conservatives think we're idiots for this fair bewilderment.

[YASNY]

Oh they do, no question about it. It makes me very sad that in the last 8 years, conservatives have become what they hate and are now completely close minded to anybody different with interest in their party, which is perhaps the biggest reason for the fracture in the party right now.

 

There is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. The conservatives are expressing those differences.

[HuskyCaucasian]

(they) and are now completely close minded to anybody different with interest in their party, which is perhaps the biggest reason for the fracture in the party right now.

And as you write this Romeny is going off the wall. Basically declaring anyone who isnt "core" republican isnt worth our time.

[Rex Kickass]

So now Romney is going to give his delegates to the guy who he thinks has been a spoiler, ruining his presidential run? that would be kinda funny.

 

You don't think Romney wouldn't shift his 250 delegates or so in the direction of a guaranteed VEEP nod?

[whitesoxfan101]

There is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. The conservatives are expressing those differences.

 

While I agree there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican, I think McCain is beginning to make it look questionable if conservatives are even a majority in what people like Rush thinks is their own party anymore. The one thing I think we can agree on is that the current state of the Republican party is not good at all, regardless of who anybody thinks is right in the debate.

 

You don't think Romney wouldn't shift his 250 delegates or so in the direction of a guaranteed VEEP nod?

 

That's a good point, although that ticket would get it's ass kicked in November.

Edited February 7, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, so Romney just ripped Islam for having a wing that wants to replace all governemnts with a religious leader. Didn't a Huckabee (a republican) just say a few weeks a go the constitution should be replaced with a version more like the bible?

[YASNY]

While I agree there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican, I think McCain is beginning to make it look questionable if conservatives are even a majority in what people like Rush thinks is their own party anymore. The one thing I think we can agree on is that the current state of the Republican party is not good at all, regardless of who anybody thinks is right in the debate.

 

Agreed. The party is fractured. I disagree that's it's questionable if conservatives are a majority. The conservative base was divided between Romney and Huckabee, while McCain swept up all the moderates.

[kapkomet]

Ok, so Romney just ripped Islam for having a wing that wants to replace all governemnts with a religious leader. Didn't a Huckabee (a republican) just say a few weeks a go the constitution should be replaced with a version more like the bible?

If he did, he needs to just stop running now. I don't think that is what was said.

[mr_genius]

You don't think Romney wouldn't shift his 250 delegates or so in the direction of a guaranteed VEEP nod?

 

Not going to happen. McCain would probably still win. I think the GOP wants the primaries over with, probably have a McCain/Huckabee ticket.

[whitesoxfan101]

Agreed. The party is fractured. I disagree that's it's questionable if conservatives are a majority. The conservative base was divided between Romney and Huckabee, while McCain swept up all the moderates.

 

I believe if you add up Huck and Romney's delegates, it would be just slightly less than McCain. While I do admit if one had dropped out early, the other would have a lead perhaps right now, I think it'd still be a very close race, and in that sense, I think it's questionable who is in the majority anymore.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't think that is what was said.

It was.

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

[whitesoxfan101]

Not going to happen. McCain would probably still win. I think the GOP wants the primaries over with, probably have a McCain/Huckabee ticket.

 

Well that is the diffcult part for Huck. He knows he has a very good chance at being McCain's VP, and if he takes Romney's delegates, he'd still be a bit behind and less than a sure thing at getting the nomination, while burning the McCain bridge.

[mr_genius]

Agreed. The party is fractured. I disagree that's it's questionable if conservatives are a majority. The conservative base was divided between Romney and Huckabee, while McCain swept up all the moderates.

 

McCain did get more delegates than Romney and Huckabee combined. But yea, Conservatives are the base of the party. I guess the split comes with neo-cons, conservatives, and maybe evangelicals (a lot of them are unhappy with the corporate 'greed' as they see it in the GOP).

[Rex Kickass]

McCain has more delegates only because of winner take all rules.

 

McCain is winning the nomination by winning states he'll get killed in during the general... like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey. Weird how that works, huh?

[Balta1701]

McCain has more delegates only because of winner take all rules.

 

McCain is winning the nomination by winning states he'll get killed in during the general... like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey. Weird how that works, huh?

The interesting thing is...you might well be able to say the same thing about Obama. North Dakota, Idaho, South Carolina, Georgia...

[Rex Kickass]

South Carolina and Georgia would be competitive for Obama. North Dakota and Idaho aren't that delgate rich, by the way.

 

NJ, CT and NY are.

[southsider2k5]

I just don't get the reasoning behind the hatred. Free and independent thought seems to not be acceptable. i just coined a phrase... "Dictatorship of Thought". you dont agree... off with your head. it just seems wrong.

You dont see Ted Kennedy BLASTING Joe Lieberman. Yet you have the core right declaring war on McCain.

 

Seriously? Some of the venom I heard towards Lieberman totally sounds like what McCain is getting right now. It was ugly during the re-election.

[Cknolls]

There are unconfirmed rumors out there that the airstrike by the predator drone last week may have killed the scumbag "American Taliban". Supposedly his phone was found in the rubble. We can only hope its true. Ashes to Ashes baby!!

[Controlled Chaos]

Edited February 11, 2008 by Controlled Chaos

[Cknolls]

MSNBC "Pimping to be last in cable". Twice in a year, a member of the "news channel" has uttered the word in a broadcast. But somehow the latest culprit did not make Olbermann's worst person in the world. Nothing more need be said.

[Controlled Chaos]

Break Obama infatuation

By Cal Thomas

 

February 6, 2008

 

In human relationships, there is the flirtation stage, followed by what my grandparents called “courting” and, if that works out, marriage. For those who are cohabiting, that was once the order of things, before disorderly social conduct took over.

 

In presidential politics, the analogy also works. We have passed the flirtation stage with Barack Obama and now it is time for a serious background check before too many of us follow our hearts instead of our heads and enter into a bad “marriage.”

 

That MoveOn.org and Sen. Edward Kennedy have endorsed Obama ought to be enough for any conservative — even moderate — to pause before heading toward the electoral altar. But Obama has offered more cause for alarm by heralding his left-wing economic philosophy in a recent interview with The New York Times.

 

Obama told the newspaper the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches government doesn’t create prosperity; people do.

 

During last Thursday’s debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on “the wealthy” and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, “What we have had right now is a situation where we’ve cut taxes for people who don’t need them.” Should government determine how much money people “need”? This is Marxism: “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Sen. Clinton expressed similar sentiments on ABC’s “This Week” when she said if people refuse to buy health insurance under her plan she might garnish people’s wages.

 

One reason this socialistic mindset resonates favorably with many is due to the shift in the last half-century from promoting hard work, self-sufficiency, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and living within one’s means, to a mentality that I am entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. That used to be called robbery before government started doing it more than a century ago through the income tax.

 

Another reason the Obama (and Clinton) class envy works is that too many people are economic illiterates. They can’t tell the difference between compound interest and a compound fracture. How many politicians today talk about looking out for one’s self, not relying on government? Too many Republicans negotiate with Democrats over the size of new programs and budget increases, rather than reducing the cost and size of the nanny state. The era of big government is not over, as Bill Clinton proclaimed in his 1996 State of the Union address; it has just begun. If either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama becomes president, government will grow even larger and become more intrusive.

 

According to recent Gallup data, “The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income, but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent — those below the median income level — now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.”

 

Soaking “the rich” even more won’t pay for all the new government programs Obama (and Sen. Clinton) wish to impose on us. Thomas Jefferson, whom Democrats claim as their party’s founder said: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

 

Calvin Coolidge, who spoke when he had something to say, cautioned, “Never attempt to build up the weak by tearing down the strong.” That is what Obama and his fellow Democrats seem intent on doing. They tear down the rich, rather than encourage the non-rich to become prosperous.

 

Obama should read the works of the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith, who said, “It is the highest impertinence and presumption … in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. They are themselves, always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.”

 

Again, Calvin Coolidge rebukes the ideology of Obama-Clinton: “The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. … The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be more successful.”

 

Given such truths, it is time to break up with our Obama infatuation.

 

 

[Cknolls]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202778190...in_commentaries

 

 

Should BILLARY be asked about this travesty?

 

Has Hill-Billy ever answered, WHY?

[Cknolls]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=56276

 

 

 

If true, this is a huge kill. One of the hardest targets to nail and one of the worst terrorists in modern history. Bravo to whoever did the deed.