The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I look at him more of a John Edwards type honestly. The sad thing is whether he is moderate or conservative Romney, either one is still better than liberal Obama.

...who only existed on the campaign trail.

 

[Reddy]

I look at him more of a John Edwards type honestly. The sad thing is whether he is moderate or conservative Romney, either one is still better than liberal Obama.

what does that mean exactly? John Edwards was the furthest thing from a flip flopper, even if you DID think he was just a sleazy car salesman.

[StrangeSox]

I look at him more of a John Edwards type honestly. The sad thing is whether he is moderate or conservative Romney, either one is still better than liberal Obama.

Liberal obama disappeared about 30 months ago.

[southsider2k5]

what does that mean exactly? John Edwards was the furthest thing from a flip flopper, even if you DID think he was just a sleazy car salesman.

 

John Edwards was a flip-flopper. The man changed a ton of his positions after he reawakening due to his poor cancer ridden wife, who he then f***ed around on, and then denied his own child.

 

He also was a man without a spine or conviction.

[southsider2k5]

...who only existed on the campaign trail.

 

 

Liberal obama disappeared about 30 months ago.

 

With the agenda that has been pushed through in the last three years, no way.

[StrangeSox]

With the agenda that has been pushed through in the last three years, no way.

yes way.

[NorthSideSox72]

With the agenda that has been pushed through in the last three years, no way.

Oh come on, really? He's gotten pushed through, either via the executive path or Congress, a small handful of things on the liberal agenda, only one of which was big (Health Care, which by the way, was a mutilated version of what he was pushing for). The rest has been huge compromises, or nothing at all. The Stim Bill was heavily tax cuts (AMT fix, high earners extended), which is not at all a liberal agenda. On taxes he has been moderate or even right-leaning. On FinReg he has allowed the regulation picture to change very little, and a lot closer to the GOP agenda than anything else. On the environment he has been a moderate at best.

 

Where is this supposed agenda he pushed through that was so liberal?

 

I have to go to a meeting, but I would love to see a list of important legislation and XO's passed during his regime, and see how low a % of what he has done even touches the liberal agenda.

 

[StrangeSox]

The health care reform was patterned heavily off of previously-Republican plans by groups Heritage and that other guy from Mass. whose name is impossible to remember since he completely faded into the background after that.

[southsider2k5]

Oh come on, really? He's gotten pushed through, either via the executive path or Congress, a small handful of things on the liberal agenda, only one of which was big (Health Care, which by the way, was a mutilated version of what he was pushing for). The rest has been huge compromises, or nothing at all. The Stim Bill was heavily tax cuts (AMT fix, high earners extended), which is not at all a liberal agenda. On taxes he has been moderate or even right-leaning. On FinReg he has allowed the regulation picture to change very little, and a lot closer to the GOP agenda than anything else. On the environment he has been a moderate at best.

 

Where is this supposed agenda he pushed through that was so liberal?

 

I have to go to a meeting, but I would love to see a list of important legislation and XO's passed during his regime, and see how low a % of what he has done even touches the liberal agenda.

 

What you consider moderate, I sure don't. Mandatory health care in no way shape or for is moderate, I don't care what compromises went into it. Closing down drilling and pipelines isn't moderate either, it is the left wing agenda to a T. Clawback features are not moderate. Pushing higher taxes and less energy supply in general is not moderate.

[NorthSideSox72]

The health care reform was patterned heavily off of previously-Republican plans by groups Heritage and that other guy from Mass. whose name is impossible to remember since he completely faded into the background after that.

Well, have to admit I just remembered we are in the Republican thread here, so I will try to turn this back to a topic more for GOP discussion...

 

What all this comes down to is, the Republican party (at the national level here) has moved quite far to the right in the past couple decades or so. But mostly, it has been the past decade, since 9/11 really. This may be good or bad, depending on your perspective. To me, it makes it harder for me to support GOP candidates, and this is coming from someone who used to vote pretty reliably GOP.

 

How to the Republicans here feel about it? Is this a positive or negative change, or neither? Are you more in the Neo-Con camp (constant war and interference, social issues big, spending who-cares), or the Libertarian camp, or the old school GOP ("compassionate" conservative, i.e. Reagan/HW) camp? Or something else?

 

[southsider2k5]

Well, have to admit I just remembered we are in the Republican thread here, so I will try to turn this back to a topic more for GOP discussion...

 

What all this comes down to is, the Republican party (at the national level here) has moved quite far to the right in the past couple decades or so. But mostly, it has been the past decade, since 9/11 really. This may be good or bad, depending on your perspective. To me, it makes it harder for me to support GOP candidates, and this is coming from someone who used to vote pretty reliably GOP.

 

How to the Republicans here feel about it? Is this a positive or negative change, or neither? Are you more in the Neo-Con camp (constant war and interference, social issues big, spending who-cares), or the Libertarian camp, or the old school GOP ("compassionate" conservative, i.e. Reagan/HW) camp? Or something else?

 

There are no "Republican" threads on Soxtalk, no matter what they are titled. But that is a completely different story.

 

Anyways, my political theories are probably closest to libertarian anymore. Economically, and socially, I believe there should be as little government as possible.

[NorthSideSox72]

What you consider moderate, I sure don't. Mandatory health care in no way shape or for is moderate, I don't care what compromises went into it. Closing down drilling and pipelines isn't moderate either, it is the left wing agenda to a T. Clawback features are not moderate. Pushing higher taxes and less energy supply in general is not moderate.

OK, first, I specifically said the Health Care Act WAS LIBERAL. Never said it was moderate, not sure where you got that idea. I completely agree with you on that issue.

 

Closing down drilling and pipelines? I suppose that would be liberal, if it were actually happening. There was the temporary stay on offshore drilling - which was then lifted. There is ANWR, which Congress stopped, no change to that ever hit Obama's desk. Then there is the new pipeline from Alberta, and their action on that was 100% political sidestep - put it off until after the election. If he had stopped it, that would be liberal. If he had fast-tracked it, that would be conservative. He's sitting in between, which is by definition "moderate" (though really I'd call it cowardly myself).

 

Higher taxes? Hasn't happened, in fact we get seeing renewals of the Bush tax cuts. Now, in this case, it IS true that ObamaCo wants to see the Bush cuts expire for the top bracket or two. But you cannot seriously look at history and say that putting those taxes back to 2000 levels - which were already very, very low on a historical scale - is liberal. It is like going from 90% conservative to 80% conservative.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

There are no "Republican" threads on Soxtalk, no matter what they are titled. But that is a completely different story.

 

Anyways, my political theories are probably closest to libertarian anymore. Economically, and socially, I believe there should be as little government as possible.

And that is kind of the camp I was in before, though not quite a devout libertarian. But I generally believe the federal government is involved in far too many things, and tends to do many of them badly. And on social issues, I generally prefer to err on the side of individual freedoms - which puts me with the GOP on 2A and 10A, the Dems on 1A, 4A and 5A, and no one on some of the others.

 

[StrangeSox]

OK, first, I specifically said the Health Care Act WAS LIBERAL. Never said it was moderate, not sure where you got that idea. I completely agree with you on that issue.

 

Except that it was conceived of by a conservative think-tank and promoted in conservative circles for years. I really don't know how you can look at the history of the core ideas in the PPACA and say that they're liberal.

[StrangeSox]

Anyways, my political theories are probably closest to libertarian anymore. Economically, and socially, I believe there should be as little government as possible.

 

Except for piss-tests for every American.

[southsider2k5]

Except for piss-tests for every American.

 

I'd rather see us get rid of as many of those programs as possible.

[StrangeSox]

I'd rather see us get rid of as many of those programs as possible.

 

there's still some contradictory about claiming to be for smaller government but also endorsing the idea that anyone who gets any direct benefits from government either in entitlements or tax deductions/credits take a piss-test.

 

check your premises.

[southsider2k5]

there's still some contradictory about claiming to be for smaller government but also endorsing the idea that anyone who gets any direct benefits from government either in entitlements or tax deductions/credits take a piss-test.

 

check your premises.

 

Not really. If you are going to have programs, they should be run correctly. They shouldn't be wasteful.

[StrangeSox]

Guess what is massively expensive and wasteful?

 

Drug testing.

 

Guess what is also a pretty severe invasion of personal privacy?

 

Drug testing.

[southsider2k5]

Guess what is massively expensive and wasteful?

 

Drug testing.

 

Guess what is also a pretty severe invasion of personal privacy?

 

Drug testing.

 

Guess what is a massive violation of economic and personal freedom?

 

The entire tax code.

[StrangeSox]

Guess what is a massive violation of economic and personal freedom?

 

The entire tax code.

 

See, I don't agree with that statement, so there's no contradiction there for me. But you claim to be for very limited government while also endorsing the idea that we should drug test just about every citizen. There's a pretty huge contradiction there.

[southsider2k5]

See, I don't agree with that statement, so there's no contradiction there for me. But you claim to be for very limited government while also endorsing the idea that we should drug test just about every citizen. There's a pretty huge contradiction there.

 

Apparently personal freedoms only exist to drugs in your world. I'd call that a contradiction, but that's OK.

[StrangeSox]

Apparently personal freedoms only exist to drugs in your world. I'd call that a contradiction, but that's OK.

 

We define "freedom" very differently, of course. Assigning your definition to me does not make me a hypocrite. My definition could be wrong, of course, but my position is not hypocritical. Yours, on the other hand, is. You cannot be for extremely small government and simultaneously for one of the most intrusive government systems that could be put into place without there being a contradiction in there.

[Reddy]

Guess what is a massive violation of economic and personal freedom?

 

The entire tax code.

who do you suggest pay for infrastructure in this country? highways?

 

do you think public libraries should be shut down?

 

who pays police and firefighters?

 

please explain these things to me

[southsider2k5]

We define "freedom" very differently, of course. Assigning your definition to me does not make me a hypocrite. My definition could be wrong, of course, but my position is not hypocritical. Yours, on the other hand, is. You cannot be for extremely small government and simultaneously for one of the most intrusive government systems that could be put into place without there being a contradiction in there.

 

I'd rather none of these programs in existence if given the choice between an extreme in your moving goalposts world. When you move the goalposts again, I'd rather see the programs run directly and correctly, without wasting money. Come back to me when you are down running around in circles.