nonniey Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 An interesting article on imo the struggle for the soul of the Republican party. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121763231581006155.html?mod=todays_columnists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoc4454 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 My favorite name for congress - "The gangsters currently in charge " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I just hope that in the aftermath of this election the Republican party can find younger people to help run it who believe in the things the party used to stand for: limitted government, low taxes, low spending, and the protection of liberties. who am I kidding though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Hopefully this election will spark some interest in actually returning this country to appropriate spending habits. Personally I'd be all for a policy/law that every spending bill put forth by the House has to have every part of it noted as to which of the eighteen "Powers of Congress" discussed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution it falls under. If it doesn't fall under any of them, it isn't allowed into the bill. Pure and simple. We'd cut the US Budget in half overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 I just hope that in the aftermath of this election the Republican party can find younger people to help run it who believe in the things the party used to stand for: limitted government, low taxes, low spending, and the protection of liberties.who am I kidding though? Granted, I'm only familiar with the last 20-30 years of history, but when do you figure was the last time that the Republican Party stood for those things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 do you think skinsfan13 knows that the jefferson republican party is the democrat party of today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Granted, I'm only familiar with the last 20-30 years of history, but when do you figure was the last time that the Republican Party stood for those things?Well, they talked the talk in 1994. Too bad it was all :bsflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Just fire up 3 Ethics committee and have it headed by. 3 sets each (house/senate/whitehouse) 1 (Department of Justice) no vote 4 year 9 random professional volunteers. 4 year term 100k a year. (no previous congressional members may serve). It should fix quite a few of the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 Well, they talked the talk in 1994. Too bad it was all :bsflag: It wasnt for the first 8 to 9 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Granted, I'm only familiar with the last 20-30 years of history, but when do you figure was the last time that the Republican Party stood for those things? hmm, presidentially speaking? Reagan flirted with those during his first term. I'd say prior to the 70's and 60's the Republicans were fine. Goldwater (minus his less desirible personal qualities) embodied that sentiment. political party history in relation to major party affiliation with ideologies is complex to say the least. I'd say the eras and parties that most closley match what I previously described were Goldwater, the 1900's-1930's Republicans (minus the corrupted ones), and the 1800-1830's Democrats.in general the 20th century was America's greatest. unfortunatly the price for that greatness was deserting most of what this country stood for politically. mostly the greatest blunder was not returning to proper order after the end of the cold war. this country is still opperated in a cold war mindset without a need to do so. granted the federal government has gotten a few things right, but its not good for our fututre the way things are currently being done, and it seems there aren't too many people farsighted enough to see this. we ought to rely more on past wisdom. just because people in the past were wrong about a few things (like slavery for example) doesn't mean they were wrong about everything... ehh, but I digress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 do you think skinsfan13 knows that the jefferson republican party is the democrat party of today? very much so. many past democrats would be appaled and ashamed at what the party has become today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Cat Stevens or Ted Nugent would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 It wasnt for the first 8 to 9 years More like 8-9 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Reading that article makes me loathe Ted Stevens all the more. It also makes me wonder how the Republican Party allowed such a terrible man into a position of leadership. Ranking by seniority needs to be done away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Reading that article makes me loathe Ted Stevens all the more. It also makes me wonder how the Republican Party allowed such a terrible man into a position of leadership. Ranking by seniority needs to be done away with. It was epidemic in the Republican party in both houses. Tom DeLay was no better than Ted Stevens. Neither was Dennis Hastert. Neither was Don Young or Jerry Lewis or Duke Cunningham - all of these guys led powerful committes or subcommittees. The K Street project was the GOP's guiding philosophy - it was all about winning, not governing. This Rolling Stone article really summed it up well. ""The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," says Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional scholar and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever Somehow the inmates took over the asylum in the past decade, and the absolute worst people that the GOP had to offer became their leaders and policy setters. If Coburn and guys like him can take back the GOP, America will benefit greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 31, 2008 Author Share Posted August 31, 2008 I just hope that in the aftermath of this election the Republican party can find younger people to help run it who believe in the things the party used to stand for: limitted government, low taxes, low spending, and the protection of liberties.who am I kidding though? How did you like the Palin pick as a strong start for your wish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 One reason Congress now has even lower approval numbers than in 2006 is the failure of Democrats to make good on their vow to clean up the earmark process. A "moratorium" on earmarks has been quietly set aside; and the Congressional Research Service has been directed by Congressional leaders to no longer respond to requests from members on the size, number or background of earmarks. "Democrats claim the earmarks will now be transparent, but they're taking away the very data that lets us know what's really happening," says South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. Democratic earmark reform, concludes Mr. Coburn, "not only failed to drain the swamp, but gave the alligators new rights." ...and yet the Democrat congress has spent 33% less on earmarks per year than the Republican congress the year before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 and the absolute worst people that the GOP had to offer became their leaders and policy setters.If Coburn and guys like him can take back the GOP, America will benefit greatly. I absolutely agree with these two sentiments here. We've had the worst of our party representing our party for the past several years. This is why I am happy about the Palin pick, as she is not afraid to stand up against this type of BS which is something we desperately need to set our party back on the right track. ...and yet the Democrat congress has spent 33% less on earmarks per year than the Republican congress the year before. link please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I absolutely agree with these two sentiments here. We've had the worst of our party representing our party for the past several years. This is why I am happy about the Palin pick, as she is not afraid to stand up against this type of BS which is something we desperately need to set our party back on the right track.link please Republicans aren't fiscally consrvative. They are socially conservative. There is no reconciling the two. Democrat congress: The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW's annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. The 2008 Pig Book identified 11,610 projects at a cost of $17.2 billion in the 12 Appropriations Acts for fiscal 2008 http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008 The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW's annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. The 2007 Pig Book identified 2,658 projects at a cost of $13.2 billion in the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts for fiscal 2007 And the Republican congress: The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW's annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. The 2006 Pig Book identified 9,963 projects in the 11 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2006, costing taxpayers $29 billion. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006 The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW's annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. The 2005 Pig Book identified a record 13,997 projects in the 13 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2005, costing taxpayers $27.3 billion If anything, I understated how much less Democrats spent in earmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Republicans aren't fiscally consrvative. They are socially conservative. There is no reconciling the two. It's always fun when you just throw crap out there without explaining...like it's solid fact :thumbsup: As for your "democrats spend less" dig, I'll just reiterate what I said before in this thread: we have the worst of the worst Republicans in Congress right now, and their excessive spending is one of the primary reasons they lost control in the last election. I don't think your are going to find any intelligent conservatives argue with you on that. That's why I am excited about the Palin pick, she doesn't put up with that crap and I think her and McCain can help set the republicans back on the right track as far as overspending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Neo Conservatives aren't fiscally consrvative. They are socially conservative. Fixed that for you. Sadly the party doesn't recognize that or care much about it anymore. That's one reason that I like McCain and hope he users this "new" theology to the party. The big government ideology of the neocons makes my skin crawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Fixed that for you. Good fix. I think that's what I was getting at that in my post...you are just more concise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Granted, I'm only familiar with the last 20-30 years of history, but when do you figure was the last time that the Republican Party stood for those things? From 95-99. All of which went out the window when Hastert took over the House, and straight down the toilet with the election of GWB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 It was epidemic in the Republican party in both houses. Tom DeLay was no better than Ted Stevens. Neither was Dennis Hastert. Neither was Don Young or Jerry Lewis or Duke Cunningham - all of these guys led powerful committes or subcommittees. and now Ted Stevens the list of corrupt high ranking GOP leaders who have been kicked out for corruption ought to be VERY disturbing for everybody. These are supposed to be the people that keep their party members in line... The GOP has to be punished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Fixed that for you. Sadly the party doesn't recognize that or care much about it anymore. That's one reason that I like McCain and hope he users this "new" theology to the party.The big government ideology of the neocons makes my skin crawl. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.” What's that again, OldSkool? Maverick! LOL, more like neocon. Once again, have you done any research on your candidate, Oldskool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.