Republicans: Look! We’re Democrats, too
The Washington Times reports today that Congressional Republicans have a plan to ape Democrats in the next election;
The overall election strategy includes short-term and long-term plans — to be introduced next week — that will tackle the rising costs of gasoline and diesel fuel, the aide said.
Beginning in June, Republicans will tout proposals to deal with health care, the economy and national security.
“Americans have seen firsthand the change Democrats are making, and it is moving America in the wrong direction. To the American people, we say that Republicans will deliver ‘the change you deserve,’ ” the memo says.
The Republicans, whose 12-year reign as the majority party in the House ended with the 2006 elections, devised the strategy to prevent further losses and, they hope, chip away at the Democrats’ 235-199 majority in the chamber.
Too little, too late. The Republicans already lost the November 2006 because they acted like Democrats while they were in Congress and voters couldn’t see the difference in voting for either one. if the Republicans think they can beat Democrats by acting like Democrats, they’re dead wrong. The Conservative base abandoned them in 2006 because of their intellectually vacant postions on illegal immigration and national defense.
I’ve had GOP operatives request that I link this blog to their their’s and I’ve refused. I wouldn’t link to a Democrat National Committee blog, why would I link to a blog that was covertly acting like Democrats? I’m not a Republican because I like the name, and currently, the name is the only thing Republican about them.
Category: Politics
The funniest part? The Dems won in 2006 at least in part because their newbies acted like Republicans.
Very funny.
The problem is, the Republicans are no longer Conservatives. I’m a Conservative first. The Republicans screwed themselves. We have refused to donate the the RNC. We will contribute to individual Conservative candidates only.
Just because you disagree with someone’s positions doesn’t make them intellectually vacant, Jonn.
Your desire to paint yourself as a principled conservative is confusing. While your claims of moving out of New York because you knew voters would elect Hillary Clinton and your refusal to link to certain RINO blogs may suggest you have conservative principles, I remain curious about one thing:
How do you reconcile your above actions with your support (blogging and profession to vote) for McCain, perhaps the biggest RINO of the RINOs?
Seems rather hypocritical to me, but I’m probably splitting hairs right?
Another reason the Republican party has lost support:
Holly-Roller Moralism
Since when did the party which used to support smaller government, less intrusion into people’s lives, and greater personal liberty turn into the party which uses the federal government to mandate “traditional family values”?
Why do we even waste time debating gay marriage, abortion, gangster rap music, the pledge of allegiance, or any other “moral correctness” issue?
To: Allen Woods
Why do you engage in a personal attack on John’s statements and beliefs? Is it that “your” personal beliefs are so morally lacking in legal support that you cannot defend your theories with anything else?
My father is a “legal alien,” who complied with all of the requirements of becoming a “Legal Permanent Resident.” He later (decades later) followed the rule of law and became an American Citizen. I was born here, as were my sisters, as was my Mother. My sister (my older sister is deceased) is a Daughter of the American Revolution (as is my Mother). On my Father’s side, since we’ve done the genealogy (and if you haven’t, you don’t know SH*T about the breadth of your ancestral “tree”). I suppose that *makes* me a Son of the American Revolution, but I have never attempted to join that organization (no aspersions cast, mind you, I’m just too lazy.) If you pulled your head out of your major orifice, you might even notice that the majority of Alamo-Defenders had rather “suspect” names, as do I.
Is John “Jonn” McCain a POS? Absolutely! Will I vote for him? Absolutely! Why? Because he’s the “best” candidate? No, he certainly is NOT. Because he’s “Republican”? No, certainly NOT. Because between choosing between self-avowedly Marxist loser candidates for the Democratic Party, I will choose the lesser of evils, even those that means I will vote for “Bush III,” someone whom I despise.
[I apparently ran out of space to post my full reply.]
I will vote for McCain because the Marxist-ideology of Obama and Clinton is a recipe for disaster. Hillary, being the liar that she is, will PROBABLY not follow through with her espoused ideology.
Obama, on the other hand, notwithstanding his demonstrated history of lies, MAY, in fact, try to implement his core ideology.
Assuming that Obama wins the election, what does this mean for us “bitter” “typical white person[s]”? That we who hold guns would actively resist U.S. governmental action? Maybe. That is the true purpose of the Second Amendment. Obama may “claim” that he is a “Constitutional” scholar, but he is an idiot. Spend 20 years studying “actual” Constitutional history ….
[Ran out of space, AGAIN!]
Study the history of “Federalists” and “Anti-Federalists” (and British Tories) Allen Woods. When you can answer, without some idiotic ah homenium attack, I MIGHT actually *listen* to you.
509th Bob:
So you will vote for a POS, gotcha. I love how you state Hilliary and Obama are liars, are you honestly suggesting that McCain isn’t one? I find it very hard to listen to you lecture about how much of an idiot Obama is and that we should study “actual” Constitutional history, yet you will vote for McCain. McCain supports gross intentional violations of the Constitution such as preemptive wars and imperialism, perhaps you should re-visit the 20 years you spent “studying” the Constitution. In fact, McCain actively and voluntarily participated in one of America’s great acts of imperialism, the Vietnam War. You may call Obama, Hilliary, and all the other candidates liars but you should do your homework into what happened in the Hanoi Hilton, maybe McCain wasn’t treated as badly as he claims. There are a great many POW’s that were with him that claim he was given the moniker “Songbird” by the North Vietnamese because he spilled his guts every chance he had to avoid torture.
McCain also claimed at one of the presidential debates that he was strongly in favor of immigration reform and that he had a great record of fighting for tougher immigration laws. What was surprisingly pointed out when asked the question was that Arizona has one of the worst immigration records in the Union. He flat out lied to the citizens by claiming he would fight for tougher immigration enforcement, so tell me, how can a man that cannot get his own state under control do it for the entire country?
509th: You may see a vote for McCain as a vote against the other candidate (Obama/Clinton). But that’s not how McCain will see it- he will think it’s another mandate for him to rule. You will send him a false message of approval. It’s ridiculous to justify voting by endorsing the lesser of two evils.
And don’t fall victim to the guilt trip of “every vote counts”. The only way your vote counts is to make you complicit in the crimes that will inevitably be committed by its recipient.
As for myself- I have never voted in an election and don’t intend to break that streak this November.
Jonn wrote: Well I’ll sleep much easier having read your last line.
Jonn:
At least Rooney has something to back his statements up. Why don’t you tell us who you are voting for and why rather than senseless and useless generalities?
Jonn wrote: My opinions are all over this blog – look it up. This section is for my readers so either be a reader or leave. Or let me come to your house and demand your opinion from you.
Jonn: I’ll be the one sleeping easier.
Voting in a political election is unethical.
The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force and if you disapprove of these things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.
Jonn:
I have been reading your blog for sometime now but all I see is the same platitudes on why you are giving your support to a certain candidate, care to give specifics? I know it’s your blog, I am not trying to be confrontational, just am curious to hear your specifics on why the candidate gets your support.
Jonn wrote: There’s a “category” titled “John McCain” – I’d start there if I were you and wanted to know what I think of John McCain. But I’m not getting into a pissing contest with you. You’ve already pissed me off with that “songbird” BS. I know where you’re coming from and I’m not getting sucked into a debate with another pseudo-intellectual.
Is it “ride the short bus to the blog day” and someone forgot to tell me?
“Voting in a political election is unethical.”
The bravest thing I ever witnessed was Afghanis voting in their presidential election, despite the fact that people threatened to kill them if they did so.
One might not so glibly deride those who vote if one had the balls to actually see what voting means to those who don’t sit around throwing insane theories out there like a monkey throwing shit in a zoo.
Jonn:
That songbird BS came from former POW’s that were in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain, so are you calling the soldiers liars? I wish I were creative enough to make up a story like that but unfortunately I am not, what’s really unfortunate is that you refuse to see the truth. That’s such a classic line, “I’m not getting sucked into a debate with another pseudo-intellectual.” What is so pseudo-intellectual about my comments?
Jonn wrote: Ya know, if you’d check that John McCain category, you’d get the answers to all of those questions. Even the ones about McCain’s POW days.
Thus Spake Ortner-
The fact that these people’s lives were threatened if they voted in the democratic process we forced on them is a testament to our utter failure there. You prove that point with your story very well. Thank you. Democracy is not the same as liberty.
Throwing out childish insults does not make your point any more valid. My ideas my seem insane only to a group of people who don’t have one original thought amongst them.
So, your original thought, your magnum opus, the shadow on Plato’s cave for you is that Voting is bad.
I stand ready to build a statue of you amongst the greats in philosophical thought.
Don’t put words in my mouth or over simplify my arguments for your convenience. Voting for the lesser of two evils is ridiculous. Supporting and legitimizing a political process that is in complete opposition to the ideas this county was founded on is equally unethical.
Ah, so only voting HERE is unethical, while voting elsewhere is a sign that we have lost. Certainly it was my fault for not following the positively enlightening logic of your words.
If I were to check what McCain and McCain supporters say about his POW days you’d get the same information the main stream media wants you to hear. I’d take the words of the POW’s actually in the prison camp with him, and multiple POW’s at that, over McCain’s word any day. Now if I were an Obama supporter and I found out that his history isn’t what he claims it is I would have a very hard time believing it, even if it’s 100% true he was telling a lie and the facts prove his statements wrong. It’s human nature to reject information that suggests something contrary to what we believe and support.
Jonn wrote: No, it’s a sign of a weak mind that automatically accepts information contrary to the generally-accepted information. I know your type sees a conspiracy behind every squirrel – that’s your business. I wasn’t in Hanoi, I was in grade school, so I’ll rely on McCain’s version, and the versions of the POWs that returned with him. Ted Sampley wasn’t in Hanoi, either (yes, I address Ted Sampley and his anti-McCain stories if you’d only look) and I suspect you weren’t there either, but you’d prefer the stories you WANT to believe. Have fun with that, but don’t pester me with your shallow intellect.
Yes again you have misrepresented my words. Having your life threatened when you vote is a pretty clear sign we have failed. Twisting people’s words when you have been nailed is also.
So we failed because they were threatened with death. Therefore, the fact that they were voting means that they were counterintuitively worse off than before. Pray tell then why they did in fact vote. Since I witnessed lines stretching everywhere. Having failed, and what with Democracy such a horrible idea in Afghanistan, what would possess someone to risk life and limb to do so?
Because of the same illusion that we in the US believe in- the illusion that just because you have a choice in democracy means that we have liberty. They had it bad before- yes. And they have it bad now too. But they were better off before we interfered because at least they had a chance of internal revolution. Now all they have is a common enemy who is imposing their will on them.
You haven’t actually been to Afghanistan have you? Because only an ignoramus foreign policy expert from afar would make such an assinine statement.
TSO:
Really…I mean, really? You’re resorting to measuring your manhood now?
Some people just don’t know when to stop, or they enjoy torture. It is painful for me to watch you embarrass yourself against Rooney.
Face it, you got pwned. Admit it, and we can all move on.
ROFL.
Thanks Allen. Yes, he certainly got me, no doubt. Got me good too, may need a medic on that one.
Democracy bad in Afghanistan, everyone there hates us, the sooner we leave the better and lets get back to oppressing women and raping the boys. Because that’s what it’s all about.
Or maybe only someone who was removed from the conflict could make an unemotional assessment??? Two sides to that coin.
Although I was in the service also. Sorry to tear down that hippie image of me you were building up in your mind.
I don’t think we have anything more to say on this. I have stated my point and you disagree, although with little mature thought as to why. You may now have the last word if you wish.
Jonn:
I don’t see a conspiracy behind every squirrel but I appreciate your generalization. What is the source of this “generally accepted information?” You are correct, I was not in Hanoi and I have heard McCain’s stories and the stories of his supporters and even seen his classic video “Return With Honor.” I used to believe that his stories were true and I got in the face of anyone that would dare try and denigrate his service. Since you are willing to listen to McCain’s description of his time in Hanoi, I offer his own words to you at http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j092999.html
He delivers a much different account of what happened initially after he was shot down, an account that is on the opposite end of the spectrum of the “generally accepted” viewpoint.
I disagree because you have not the slightest comprehension of what you are talking about. For instance, you claim it was better before we got there. Better for whom? Atleast half the population were unable to go to school and read. So it’s a bad thing for little girls to be able to go to school? And little boys were repeatedly raped, and had no hospitals they could go to, a service valiently filled now by an Egyptian Hospital on Baghram among other such facilities. To suggest that Americans going into Afghanistan has made the plight of Afghani’s worse is absolutely assinine, and since you don’t believe me, then go there and talk to them yourself. The chief complaint registered in ‘stan is not us coming around, it’s that we aren’t there more often and in the numbers the locals would wish. But you go back to just thinking that Democracy is an evil being progated by an Imperialistic regime bent on world domination for Halliburton.
The people I served with overseas would be happy to tell you the otherwise.
Miss one trip on the Short Bus, and look what happens….
Is McCain a POS? On illegal immigration? Absolutely. Global Warming? Yep. Fighting the war to a successful end? Nope, that’s why I’ll probably vote for him. With reluctance, because I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson, but he proved to not be up to the task.
I have voted in every presidential election since 1980, but I might sit this one out if McCain pick Huckabee for his VP.
Now to McCain POW experiences – is Mssr. Bakien buying the “plied with liquor and whores” story? He doesn’t “believe” McCain was tortured? I guess he never heard of Admiral Denton, either.
And on to Afghanistan, where the people had it so much better under the Taliban until we arrived to “oppress” them. Puh-lease. By the way, isn’t Afghanistan the part of the Global War on Terror that the DEMOCRATS are supposed to believe in [until after we surrender in Iraq first]?
509th:
I am hoping you didn’t read the article I posted before you wrote that response. The only thing I am suggesting is that things didn’t happen the way McCain said they did. He has clearly given two different accounts of what happened so I don’t accept the “generally accepted” view that he was tortured to near death and so on.
So you support McCain primarily based on the fact that he will be fighting the war against an idea, a war that cannot be won, and a war which will bear no surrenderer except the United States? So tell me, Bob, how can you wage a war against an idea to a successful end?
What idea are we fighting against? When we fought World War II against the Nazis, we defeated the men who held the beliefs, but we still have neo-Nazis running around the world today. Under your rhetoric, I suppose we “lost” that war too?
“fighting the war against an idea, a war that cannot be won”
You totally just stole that from The Legend of Bagger Vance.
“Golf is a game that can’t be won, but only played.”
509- you miss the point and twist my words for your convenience just like TSO. What I said was they were better off before because at least they had the chance for an internal revolution- a chance to shape their own society and govt with more legitimacy and better long term chance of viability. Instead we have created new enemies everywhere we interfere and we’ve seen the US demoted to a mistrusted bully malcontent in the eyes of the world.
509th:
It’s a good thing you admitted you ride the short bus. I don’t know, maybe terrorism is the idea we are fighting against right now? I am guessing that you are suggesting the war is being fought against al qaeda or the taliban right? Well if that’s the case then why don’t they call it the war against them? WWII and the current conflict we are in are completely different situations, we actually DECLARED war in WWII and we haven’t declared war since so we can’t even call it a war but that doesn’t seem to bother you at all.
You have misunderstood my “rhetoric.” I stated above that this “war” cannot be won because it is being waged against an idea. The only side of this “war” that will have the chance to surrender is the United States. There were two clearly different offers of surrender in WWII, one signed by the German Nazi Army in May of 1945 and the other was signed by the Japanese in August of 1945. Just who do you expect to sign an unconditional surrender to the United States when this “war” is supposedly at it’s end? The “leader” of Al Qaeda or the Taliban? And just who is the leader of those organizations? Osama bin Laden? Need we discuss how he got to where he is today?
Arguing with these two is like trying to kick a eunich in the nuts. You can try, but they simply aren’t equipped.
Rooney, there is a clear logical disconnect in your reasoning. The Afghans were “better off before” by being enslaved by the Taliban? For what purpose? So that they could have a “chance for an internal revolution”? Now, granted, like many conservatives, I have an underlying isolationist streak, and in general, I understand your conceptual hypothesis that a home-grown concept of national unity and government is better than an externally-imposed one – unless you are looking at a completely out-of-control entity such as, say: Imperial Japan before the surrender; Nazi Germany before the surrender; and Cambodia under Pol Pot (who was such a disaster that the Vietnamese invaded). As for assisting the locals to help them help themselves, I suppose we should spit on those damned pre-Revolutionary Frenchmen for assisting us during our Revolution?
So, I will agree with you to a very limited end – the U.S. shouldn’t invade, say, Canada, because they talk funny, heh? And we shouldn’t invade Chile because that volcano erupted. And we shouldn’t invade Thailand to stop the sex trafficking industry there. Oh, and, unlike the New York Times, I don’t think we should invade Burma to force the people to eat U.N. food supplies. Those places we can leave to their internal revolutions because, for the most part, they pose no threat to us.
Mssr. Bakian. War (One and Two) on the Barbary Pirates comes to mind.
And, Oh Great One (PBUH), tell me precisely how our Joint Resolution authorizing this war is different from the Declaration of War against Japan (and later, Germany)? I know the answer (hint: its about economics), do you?
509th:
CONGRESS formally declared war in WWI and WWII, not the UN or any Joint Resolution.
509- fair enough. At least you are open to other’s ideas (unlike TSO who has to resort to name calling when he fails to conjure a coherent thought in his vacuous skull). Although I will say there is a big difference in the case of Germany and Japan- they were nation states invading our allies/our homeland.
Um, BB, who do you think passed the Joint Resolution for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?
509:
A joint resolution of war does not equal a formal declaration of war. So if you are suggesting that it is, then I suppose Iraq would be the country or enemy that you are expecting to surrender to the United States?
Jonn wrote: Um, show me in the Constitution where it mentions that it takes a “formal declaration of war” to mobilize our armed forces into battle.
I protest! I resort to ad hominem attacks even when I have a coherent thought.
I didn’t spend 4 years in law school to argue with a retard who gets his talking points from Paulians. There’s no arguing with you peeps since you just change your argument when pinned down. So what’s the point? But I do like the divide and conquer mentality. I figure 509th Bob and I will start fighting any second now.
Section 10 Jonn:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Iraq never posed any real threat to the United States. Colin Powell, Dick Cheaney, et al flat out lied to the American people when they said they had WMD’s, and that was our reasoning behind going into Iraq. Once we found out there were none we should have left immediately instead of prolonging the bloodshed.
Jonn wrote: OK, rocket surgeon, which State declared war? If you’d ever spent a minute with the Constitution, you’d know that when it refers to “States” it’s referring to actual States, like New York Pennsylvania…. What you’re looking for is Section 8 of Article I which says simply “To declare war”. Nothing about a formal declaration, nothing forbidding a joint resolution…oops, you just got hit by the Truth Train.
[Insert insane laughter here]
BWWWAHAHAHAHHAHA
TSO- there you go proving my point again. Right on cue. BTW- I am not a Paulian. But don’t let that stop your ignorant personal attacks and or blind labeling of people. You bring nothing of substance to the table. I have resigned myself to the fact that you are incapable of open discussion or thought. Go ahead and keeping leaning on the insult crutch though- it seems to be your patented move. Saying you went to school obviously didn’t change that. It is people like you who set the conservative movement back and give otherwise honorable republicans a bad name.
There you go again, calling me a conservative.
Oh wait, never mind.
Well I can admit when I am wrong. The question still stands for 509th, who do you expect to surrender to our Joint Resolution Authorizing Force against Iraq? If you are going call this a war, as you are implying, it takes a formal declaration of war and the point still stands, Joint Authorization does not equal a formal declaration of war.
Jonn wrote: I’m on my way to College Park to pick you up. I pwn you now.
Lest you be confused, anyone who says anything even vaguely resembling the following will never engage in debate with me, and will be on the receiving end of every insult I feel like discharging, just on account of principle.
“Voting in a political election is unethical.
The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force and if you disapprove of these things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.”
Here’s your sign asshat.
The only thing I have conceded is that I had the wrong section quoted, simple as that. The point still stands, the confusion you have, implying that a joint resolution is the same as a formal declaration of war, is what is driving the conversation and until now has yet to be addressed by either you, Jonn, or 509th.
Jonn wrote: You have yet to show me where a formal declaration of war is needed. Where is it codified? The Constitution says “To declare war…” that’s it. It doesn’t say how, it doesn’t mention what kind of declaration of war is unacceptable. It simply says “To declare war….” You can keep moving the goal posts, but you’re still wrong.