• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

The Republican Party is on a road to nowhere - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

September 22, 2014

The Republican Party is on a road to nowhere

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

66 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • WiredOne posted at 8:07 am on Thu, Apr 24, 2014.

    WiredOne Posts: 34

    "A national politician who brings a Berkeley crowd to its feet by attacking NSA surveillance programs and wants to balance the budget yesterday? Who supports the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment (not to mention the First and the Tenth)? A Christian Republican who says that the GOP “in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues” and has signaled his willngness to get the federal government out of prohibiting gay marriage and marijuana?"
    Well, we can’t have that, can we? "
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/27/rand-paul-is-politically-divergent-and-so-he-must-be-stopped.html

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:55 am on Thu, Apr 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    There you go again. read the ENTIRE comment. He is describing the way DEMOCRATS treat women:
    "Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it,” Huckabee said.
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/01/mike-huckabee-dems-think-women-cant-control-their-libido-without-government/

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:30 am on Thu, Apr 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 11:51 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014:

    No, I don't recall which republican candidate you endorsed. Unless it was Huckabee??

    His record on women and the multicultural segment is indeed dismal. None of us men have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies, unless perhaps we happen to be a doctor. But, he had to play doctor, and when he said that doctors provide women with birth control because "they can't control their libido without the help of the government"....well, ponce, that is demeaning toward women. However, he might be changing his tune real soon on this and other social issues. Why? Here's why...and it's very topical for this thread -

    Notice that Huckabee, Cruz, and Rand Paul refuse to talk about social issues that they've been knee jerk conservative with in teh past. They've all the sudden gotten hush-hush on gay marriage and abortion. There was a big republican meeting in New Hampshire last week, and they made no mention of social issues. Perhaps they're realizing that in order to regain republican followers, they need to get with the 21st century and abandon thoughts of taking away contraceptives and the right to marry who you want.

     
  • mickphalen posted at 4:43 pm on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    carlosrponce,

    Back in the mountains where I grew up, the old timers said that ginseng did more than wake you up .....[smile]

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:53 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    mickphalen, Grandpa Harrison had the same problem on Pawn Stars. They gave him ginseng, expresso coffee and energy drinks to wake him up.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 11:51 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    sverige, a lot of the the true conservative voters sat out the 2012 election because they did not view Mitt Romney as a true Conservative. If we select a candidate that will rouse the Conservative base , like Ronald Reagan did, the Republicans will win in 2016. If a wishy washy "nice guy" gets nomnated - no dice and your Hillary will be elected. If Mitt had the Republican votes John McCain had, he would have won. And McCain was no Conservative either.
    And what DID Hillary accomplish as Secretary of State? No humility here. She doesn't have an answer. She gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrova a "RESET" button which was badly translated. "Peregruzka" doesn't mean "reset". It means overcharged, or overloaded. "You got it wrong," Lavrov said.
    The State Department lost 6 BILLION dollars under Hillary's watch. That and 4 dead Americans killed in Ben Ghazi - not much of a record. But sverige, the striped tiger will still vote for his Hillary no matter who the Republicans nominate. And you still haven't guessed whom I am backing for the 2016 Republican nominee. Hint: You, sverige, took his comments WAY out of context. He was describing the way Democrats treat women and you assigned that to the way he views women. Shame on you!

     
  • mickphalen posted at 10:54 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    yawn .................. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

     
  • sverige1 posted at 10:18 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 9:43 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014:

    Well, ponce...wouldn't you want to have more voters who are "on the fence"? That is, they are "swing voters" who don't adhere to a certain pidgeonholed philosophy. Too bad that it's hard for you to wrap around your head that there are indeed folks like me who had a rather conservative upbringing and who have voted Republican in the past.

    Well, I have. It's just that your party simply got too exclusionary, too fringy toward its disdain for diversity. Well, this stiped tiger is not willing to only have one choice - the democrat choice. As for Hillary - what was wrong with what she said? It sounds like a humbling response to her question. She did the best she could, and wanted to hand it over to another. I think many of us view our worklife in that manner, especially today. No one stays with something for more than a few years. If so, they run in danger of becoming as extinct as the dinosaur.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:43 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Yes, you would endorse Powell, Christie or Huntsman for the Republican nominee but then vote for Hillary for President. Let Republicans pick their candidate. Yes, I believe you would "consider" their platform - in a trillionth of a nano-second but a tiger doesn't change his stripes.Pure rhetoric, sverige, pure rhetoric. Did you see Hillary's interview when asked about her greatest accomplishments as Secretary of State? "Hillary Clinton herself has struggled to clearly articulate concrete examples of her success.'I really see my role as secretary, and, in fact, leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race,' Clinton told an audience at a recent event in New York when she was asked about her triumphs in that job. 'You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton.' "
    Source:
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/22/hillary-clintons-record-at-state-under-fire-again/

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:26 am on Wed, Apr 23, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    It just goes to show you that any Republican who strives to tell some sort of truth (McCain, Powell) is struck from the "good" list because they don't follow all of the tenets of the prime vote-getters of the group. Those tenets are fear tactics in regard to overtakage by "minorities", income equality among the genders, and striving to keep a middle class sector in our society.

    The Republicans really haven't changed since the Nixon years. They're still caracatures of themselves, yet now to the 4th power. With the likes of McConnell, Boener, Bachmann, Huckabee, Perry and others, their voters will always remain being fundamentalist, bible-thumping conspiracy theorists/followers. How interesting that within the party (and even in this forum) there's folks who reject Powell.

    It would behoove the Republicans to have the prestige of folks like Powell, Christie, and Mr. Huntsman. If they had more like them, I'd consider their platform(s).

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:39 pm on Tue, Apr 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Not Herman Cain although he is a good man. At least he has an economics background. It must be hard for you to guess to whom I refer since you have demonized every conservative.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:34 am on Tue, Apr 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Cain?? What a shame...I kind of like Christie..he's an "everyman".

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:56 am on Tue, Apr 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    I'll leave it up to you sverige to find that comparison of Ronald Magnificus Reagan to Chance the Gardener. May I suggest the Rosenberg Library. Back in BC days (Before Computers) there was a reference book to cross check periodicals and magazines. It's your post, your claim, so it's your ball. I bet you'll find it in some leftist rag.
    Christie is NOT the Conservative choice for 2016. He is being shoved at us by the same crew that brought us McCain and Romney. I have already stated my favorite and you have already demonized him, taken his words out of context so I will not repeat it here.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:54 am on Tue, Apr 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:55 pm on Mon, Apr 21, 2014:

    Well, then, Ponce....I very likely would make a good film critic with great ability to find parallels. Now, we must remember that back in 1980, there was no viable internet to illustrate what some film reviewers may have said in regard to the comparison of "Chance the Gardener" to Ronald W. Reagan.

    Perhaps there are archives of old Time magazines or other movie review magazines that are online. Maybe you can make it a library project to see if any are on microfiche.

    Going along with the topic of this thread, I have yet to hear of a frontrunning republican that can take the torch and become a competitor to Hillary when she runs. Christie? Probably not...his weight is an issue. I do have an idea: Perhaps he can be a contestant on "The Biggest Loser". His weight loss can be an inspiration to many folks from all walks of life.

    I think making himself more open to the public by going on a reality show might be a good move for him at this time. Just know - I am really serious about this. Christie's press secretary should suggest that he audition.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 6:38 am on Tue, Apr 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    I have to admit one good thing about President Obama -he makes President Reagan look like a genius.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:55 pm on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Any semblance between Chance the Gardener and the Real Ronald Reagan lies in the minds of Liberals with nothing better to do. I looked up several reviews of the film by Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel,The New York Times, etc. NO CRITIC compares the character in the movie to Ronald Reagan, not even the most liberal. If you can find one, please elaborate. And please don't include Joe Schmo from the "Never Heard of Times". As to the incident you mention, you really stretched that one.
    At a press conference, ABC News' Sam Donaldson asked Ronald Reagan, "You're not getting too old to run again, are you?"
    And the first lady quickly replied getting a lot of laughs, "How would you like a piece of cake, Sam?"
    No loss for words on Reagan's part, Nancy had a a quick retort and intercepted. Don't take things out of context, sverige.
    Watch The Woman Behind a Great Man
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-woman-behind-a-great-man/
    By the way, a web search of comparisons between Chance the Gardener and Ronald Reagan did turn up a link -a comment posted by some guy named sverige 1on the Galveston Daily News Web site - and one from the Democratic Party.

     
  • gecroix posted at 7:31 pm on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    So is this thread.....

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:59 pm on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    I think that what we have is a multitude of political viewpoints. Some of these viewpoints may be eloquently stated, and some not so much. Some of these viewpoints are radical and some not so much. Some are backed with pragmatic roadmaps for accomplishing them, and others presume some magical and mythical dream that requires a snap of the fingers and all falls into place. I think every one of the people you cite has some of each of those elements. Of all of them, I'd have to say that Reagan and Clinton were probably the best overall at working through the political realities to achieve the most benefits they could. Since Obama is still in office, the jury is still out on him, but so far, he hasn't shown much capability to persuade his political opponents to follow him even part way. Clinton, was able to progress parts of his agenda even in the wake of the Contract With America. If the Republican Party is as factional and fractured as some claim, Obama should be able to leverage at least some of that to his advantage. Instead, for the most part, the Obama Administration is counting on unseating Republican Congressmen in 2014 in order to demonstrate legislative victories rather than figuring out how to maneuver the Congress he has.

    You may be able to make a point that Obama has a clearer focus than Bush 2 had, but you can't make the point that Obama has been even as successful in getting others to see the same vision. Of course, for Bush 2, the vision he initially campaigned with was toppled 8 months into his presidency by unforseen circumstances.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:42 pm on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Colin Powell has many accomplishments. Conservative is NOT on the list.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:43 pm on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Response to kevjlang posted at 10:52 pm on Fri, Apr 18, 2014:

    Well, Powell is actually one of the more intelligent conservatives. Any conservatism I hold could quite parallel with Powell, and perhaps the elder Paul (Ron).

    The point I succintly made was that we have folks like Powell, the Clintons, Obama, and Huntsman. Then we have the ilk of Palin, Reagan, Huckabee, Bush #2.

     
  • mickphalen posted at 8:19 am on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    "The Republican party is on a road to nowhere" progressives want to go.

    About time ....

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:13 am on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 4:02 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014:

    Ponce, tell me more accurately how the movie "Being There" was portrayed, if I did not do so. Are you saying that it was not loosely based on Ronald Reagan getting elected?

    Ask any critic of the movie. The parallels are uncanny. No one has ever accused Reagan of being an intellectual. Quite the opposite: his behavior was not unlike "Chance the Gardener". Even his wife, Nancy, had to speak into his ear when he was at a loss for words and was unprompted by Larry Speaks or Al Haig. I remember the time when Sam Donaldson tried to ask Reagan a question on his birthday. All Mrs. Reagan could do was try to thwart Sam's questioning, asking Sam, "Do you want some cake?"

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:28 am on Sat, Apr 19, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    The problem is as you have noticed in this forum is that some ProgLibs will take constructive criticism of one own's party and run with it. "See, even Colin Powell says your party is filled with racists," is the message they perceive. Truth be told there are racists on both sides of the aisle but the ProgLibs will not admit it. You cannot hurl mud without getting dirty yourself.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:52 pm on Fri, Apr 18, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    carlosrponce, apparently, Colin Powell, supposedly a fan of the Republican Party, thought he was leveling constructive criticism toward his party. I assume that he couldn't care less whether the Democratic party fixes its issues, since he'd like to see the Republican Party fix what he perceives are issues and take control of the presidency and the Senate again, and, presumably, expand its control of the House. I doubt that Pete Carroll, while telling his team the things they needed to do better going into the Super Bowl, was also offering words of wisdom and advice to the Denver Broncos.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 1:50 pm on Fri, Apr 18, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    First of all let me be clear in my admiration for General Colin Powell, because it runs deep! The man is intelligent,..and he is thorough. He is highly driven and successful too.
    -
    I also want to state what we all know, and what is highly understood, that we are privileged to live and abide in a free society, to state our opinions and criticize what we don't like to a point, and voice boisterous approval of things we do like. That goes without being said. I will throw this in and it will be free of charge,....the price for such freedom,...to me at least has not been paid for in FULL, so it has not been purchased,...it is being paid for on "INSTALLMENTS"...because we still have brave Americans dying for the rights of individuals of this country and around the world in order for them to be able to continue enjoying such freedoms.
    -
    So having prefaced my opinion on General Powell telling conservatives how to be better at doing what conservatives say they want to do, is like Malcolm X schooling the KKK on how to better be what they have outlined in their charters! Bot scenarios are bad fits! Beats me why General Powell claims to be a Republican in the first place. He seems more like this Old snuff-dipping,...Plow-Boy....from the hill country! He seems to be an Independent,...which there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!
    -
    However, since I'm not a conservative, and have openly displayed my Independent views in front of witnesses,and voted the same views,...I'd hardly think I'd be the one to be caught somewhere trying to coax conservatives on how to be better conservatives! Again, as much respect and love I have for General Powell and what he has accomplished in serving and defending this country, I don't think he would be my first choice in helping to evaluate conservatives. Now,...that's my two cents! I'm very appreciative that yall allowed me to express them here.
    -
    Well, Yall take care "heah!" I'll see yall later,... on another "WORTHY" thread!
    Good-bye. Is it time for football yet? I'm ready!!!!!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:02 pm on Fri, Apr 18, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    kevjlang, prejudice runs in both parties. For Colin Powell to address the few Republicans who have problems with those different than themselves and ignore the Democrats who have problems with with those different than themselves is sheer lunacy. To differ from the views held by President BO is now considered "RACISM" by those on the left. But then when those on the left call Conservative African Americans names and blast their views why is that considered acceptable? Without no balance, that is why Colin Powell's views are considered irrelevant.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:47 am on Fri, Apr 18, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    I think we're both guilty of trying to incorporate some comprehension into what was written. Our differences in comprehension don't really matter much to me. I'm just wondering why Colin Powell isn't someone that can speak to conservatives about issues facing the Republican Party, which is what I though was being discussed. If that's not what Mick Phalen and sverige1 were getting into, then I'm sorry for going off topic.

     
  • gecroix posted at 11:27 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Kevjlang, I'm just a simple old country boy come to the big city of Texas City to make my 'fortune' in life. I only know how to read what gets written, not what was intended, or thought, or may have been believed.
    Look, tell ya what. Far be it from me to give a man a grade of F on his own essay paper, so I am requesting the GDN forum gods to delete all my failures to divine true meaning on this thread, and my subsequent efforts to just respond to the words on the screen.
    I will try much harder, much harder, to not make the mistake again.
    Good night.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:55 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Anyone can critique the Republican Party. You are correct, Colin Powell was never Conservative. At best he was described as a "Rockefeller Republican".
    I tend to view Colin Powell's comments as cutting both ways as the same can be said about elements of the Democratic Party. As Bob Beckel, a Democrat said "there are prejudiced Republicans and Democrats". Remember, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. Remember the Jaybird Primaries? The Democratic Party of Texas excluded African Americans from voting in the party's primaries. The KKK has traditionally been associated with the Democratic Party.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 7:49 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    My question was why Colin Powell is not worthy of critiquing the Republican Party. You turned my question into why he's not a good conservative. That was never my question. I don't think that sverige1 was indicating that Colin Powell was a good conservative, either. I believe that Mick Phalen's comment was that Colin Powell's statements don't have relevance to conservatives.

     
  • gecroix posted at 7:05 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    9:38 am 4/17
    Mickphalen : Colin Powell should not be the example you use to help make your point to conservatives

    10:00am 4/17
    Kevjlang: Please explain. Why isn't Colin Powell a good example?

    10:32am 4/17
    I gave a couple of examples of why Powell is not a good example of a conservative

    10:40am 4/17
    Mickphalen offered another reason why

    11:41am 4/17
    You abandon your own nice, simple, straightforward question, and the simple, straightforward answers, and go on a trip to Wayoutyonderville...

    Actually, though, I think the two reasons I offered, and certainly the one Mick added, are reason enough for any reasonable person capable of reasoning to conclude that a person purporting to support one thing while in reality acting directly and consciously against that thing is not a good example of the thing in question. And also that endorsing someone who cannot open his mouth without damning that which you've claimed to support and be a part off is just the cherry on the I-am-not-really-what-I-said-I-was sundae.
    Subcategory: never mind what you said you were yesterday, what are you, demonstrably, by your own words and deeds, today.

    My doctor told me my on again-off again short term memory issues were related to my having exceeded 6 decades of life.
    I have no idea what causes it in younger men...[beam][beam][beam][beam]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:30 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    I thought the subject was whether Colin Powell is worthy of commenting on the issues facing the Republican Party. At least that seems to be the meaning of sverige1's comment that provoked mickphalen's comment. My question was why do you and Mick believe that Colin Powell is not qualified to state opinions on what may be wrong with the Republican Party. You stated that it's because of a couple incidents of questionable judgement that disqualifies him.

     
  • gecroix posted at 6:14 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Yet again, you go to an extreme.
    The subject was whether Powell is a good example of a conservative, not what his life story is, not what anyone else is or did, not who can be trusted, not about percentages, not about withholding votes, or about expectations.
    It's a simple 'good example of conservative', or 'not'.
    At least two people say 'not'. I have no idea what your opinion on that subject is, because you abandoned it in favor of heading off for other places to attempt to make a point that only you are raising.
    Thing about life is, you have to live it in the present.
    If I buy something on Amazon, I want the picture of the item shown to reflect what it looks like today. What I'm actually buying.
    I have no interest in buying something that used to be, but no longer is.
    Same for politics.

     
  • mickphalen posted at 5:34 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    Hi Kev,

    I've given up on traditional political labels. As we have seen all too often in local, state, and national campaigns, calling yourselves something, i.e. "a conservative" or "a tea partier" means nothing.

    My two descriptors these days are "politician" and "public servant". We have way too many of one and not nearly enough of the other.

    Yet, we, as an electorate, continue to only look for the labels, as if a person saying "tea party" will not be the same kind of slimy politician who only wants the job for the power/ego trip, or wants to get her friends in on the action.

    A quick comparison of a candidate's finance reports and their voting record is the surest I have found to see if they are a politician or a public servant.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:02 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    sverige, In your original post you got the name of the movie wrong and all the details wrong. Your credentials are lacking.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:57 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:30 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014:

    BTW...the movie "Being There" was a strong connective link between "Chance the Gardener" and Ronald Reagan. That was part of the "draw" of the movie. By 1980, Reagan miraculously becomes President through simpleton parables and old-timey innuendos.

    Chance the Gardener was only knowledgeable about gardening and watching "The Price is Right". Not too far from Reagan and his crossword puzzles and wood chopping.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:54 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Actually, I meant to refer to the movie "Being There". The main character was Chance the gardener. Didn't they refine his name in the movie and call him "Chauncey"?

     
  • gecroix posted at 12:24 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Yes.
    TRUE character is what you do when you think nobody will find out.
    To my simple old Nacogdoches ways, 'flexible' character is not a good thing to have...
    The only winner with this character's type of character is Richard Milhous Nixon, the previous Presidential record holder for biggest liar, schemer, and scoundrel to ever hold the office....
    But, what the hey...a takeover of somebody else's country(s) and a total upheaval of 1/6 of the national economy, and more, is a small price to pay for re-election.
    And, truth be told, looks like about half the country doesn't mind at all being rode hard and put up wet...as long as they get to graze in the neighbor's pasture.
    I believe the phrase for our man in DC is 'all hat, no cattle'...
    The 'new normal'...

     
  • Jbgood posted at 12:05 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    [beam][smile][wink]

     
  • Jbgood posted at 12:04 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    "Even folks not in academia can intuitively conclude that folks like Cain, Bachmnann, and Palin are dullards."-----severige1
    -
    I'll tell you what I intuitively conclude! I conclude that Hillary stood by her man, Colin loves Obama because he looks like him,....and Mr. Obama is in over his head!!!!! Now!! I wonder if you "yes-sir" me? ( East Texas for, do you understand me? )
    -
    I told you I'm looking over this forum for some FOOTBALL!!!! MAN!!!!! It is the only thing that will calm me down from worrying about that secret "I can be more flexible and "MUTABLE"... after the election comment which was made some time ago.
    ( Translated that means "I CAN *&^% THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER AFTER THEY RE-ELECT ME,....SO WAIT TILL THEN PLEASE?" )
    Now,..the clock on the wall says it's time for me to step!
    -
    See on the next worthy thread,......MAYBE!!

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:41 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    So, because of a couple of issues, he's erased everything good that he ever did before or since? Yet people are supposed to erase what someone like Ted Nugent has done repeatedly because of a few recent good deeds? I always thought we're supposed to look at the whole person. Makes me think that the formula is that if Democrats, Liberals, Independents, or Moderates happen to respect someone claiming to be Republican, that "Republican" is not to be trusted. Is it an accurate perception that for much of the party, 98% might just as well be 2% or even 0? No such thing as "mostly conservative", "usually Republican", or "fiscally Tea Party"? If you aren't all-in, you're all-out? This seems to contradict the point below about people withholding their votes because the candidate didn't meet 100% of their expectations.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:19 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    How sad, mickphalen, that you seem to not have respect for academia. It's no secret that the Clintons, Powell, and Obama have intellecualism way over the likes of Herman Cain and Ronald Reagan.

    Even folks not in academia can intuitively conclude that folks like Cain, Bachmnann, and Palin are dullards.

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:48 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    It was a pleasure.
    I also concur on the absence of synonyms.

     
  • mickphalen posted at 10:40 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    thanks, gecroix, I would only add ---- he's not a conservative ... and BTW, I don't consider "Republican", "conservative", and "Tea Party" to be interchangeable ...

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:32 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    1) Knowing that his own deputy SofS, Richard Armitage, had 'outed' Valerie Plame, but not telling his boss at the White House, thus allowing 2 years of public demonization in the media and by Spec. Pros. Patrick Fitzgerald (who, by the by, ALSO new from the start that Armitage was the source) qualifies as a very good example of being a very poor example, to me
    2) Endorsement(s) of Barack Hussein Obama
    Those two are self-explanatory...

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:00 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    Please explain. Why isn't Colin Powell a good example?

     
  • mickphalen posted at 9:38 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    sverge1, Colin Powell should not be the example you use to help make your point to conservatives [wink]

     
  • mickphalen posted at 9:36 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    Definition of scholars: Progressive, tenured, overpaid professors (and "scientists") whose lives are spent at the public teet - - writing grant applications to "study" things no one gives a squat about.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:23 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    Colin Powell said it best back in February. Certain elements of Republican party tend to demonize minorities and women, and "people who don't look the way they'd like".

    He said, "the party needs to deal with this". Couldn't have said it better myself.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:30 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Yes, but I liked him on "Death Valley Days".
    Are you talking about the movie "Being There"? It's about a gardener named Chance (Peter Sellers) who gets his knowledge from television. When his wealthy benefactor dies, he wanders about wearing his employer's expensive clothes and his sayings are mistaken for profound statements. He becomes the adviser to the President of the United States played by Jack Warden. He goes by the name of Chauncey Gardiner. No, this character bears no semblance to Ronald Reagan who did spout words of wisdom.
    So, "Mr. Obama has the brains to speak intelligently about world and domestic affairs." One can hope.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:46 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    JBG -
    Reagan was a mediocre actor who had strengths perhaps in broadcasting. He could have remained in his niche in that field, but as a politician he was not well-respected (and still isn't) by the majority of scholars. Intellectually, there was much left to be desired.

    Did you ever see the movie "The Gardener"? It was loosely based upon Ronald Reagan. Chance Gardener was a simpleton who luckily became President because his parables led a desperate society into "believing" in him. Folks might say that today as of 2008, but at least Mr. Obama has the brains to speak intelligently about world and domestic affairs.

    Reagan did know his jelly beans, though. LMAO

     
  • Acehi posted at 7:21 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    Acehi Posts: 19

    Good job JB and well stated. As for sverige you all are waisting your time and valuable space. Rarely do people with that type of a mind set wake up and get their head out of the other part.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 8:49 pm on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    I meant Mr. Reagan expected men and women to work for a living. Excuse me!

     
  • Jbgood posted at 8:42 pm on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    Hey guy,...let me tell you something about Mr. Reagan! Mr. Reagan expects men and women to WORK for a living! Got that,...and you did not hear Mr. Putin complaining about his statement about BOMBING USSR!!!!!!!!!
    -
    It set very well with me!!! It kept the Russians on their toes wondering,..but you would not know anything about military strategy. What are we doing now? NOTHING ...but getting clowned, by a clown,..and that is bad! That is what I liked about Mr. Reagan, he spoke out! He did not get in a corner and whisper to somebody's LACKEY,...to tell the boss, I can help him,...I can be more mutable AFTER the elections! lolololol Yes I love me some RR. Why not? My parents taught me hard work ethics in East Texas from a child. Hard work never scared me. Russians air-crafts are over there buzzing, and clowning our ships near Ukraine now. I'd bet you anything Mr. Putin would not have pulled that trash on RR, that is if he valued his air-crafts!!!!!
    -
    Now,..excuse me,...I have to scurry us something on football. My work is done here,...see ya on another thread,...maybe!!!!!

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:34 pm on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    If they had kept it just for the military, that would have turned out to be a huge waste of money. That "pork" project has repaid our economy many times over. Not something typical of "pork" projects.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:31 pm on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    I still don't use the toll roads I use the "freeways". And sverige you have a right to your own opinion but not your own facts. I've given you the link to a government website (aids.gov) that states how many billions the Reagan spent on AIDS research and treatment but you still refuse to acknowledge the facts. Five Pinocchios for your statement "he turned his back on the AIDs epidemic until a little speech in late 1988".
    Government Spending on HIV/AIDS - Reagan Years
    1982 $8,000,000
    1983 $44,000,000
    1984 $103,000,000
    1985 $205,000,000
    1986 $508,000,000
    1987 $922,000,000
    1988 $1,615,000,000

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:42 pm on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3393

    You got it, Jake! Present and accounted for - it's the the show of all shows - the sverige show.

    Now, I have mentioned this many times before, but bears re-emphasis. Folks sqwacked when the Railroads were being constructed. Same for work programs and the interstate system. In Houston in the 80s, they complained about the toll roads, saying they only did it "up nawth". Now, in 2014, we reap the advantages of all of the above.

    JBG - Reagan??? Really? Which part of his leadership did you like most? When he joked that he was going to bomb USSR ("The bomb goes off in 5 minutes.") or when he turned his back on the AIDs epidemic until a little speech in late 1988, close to his ending 2nd term? How about his input in regard to the closings of mental health facilities due to his famed "budget cuts"?

    As for the title of this letter, it is true. The republicans are in shambles. That is indeed a shame. As many have mentioned before, we need a strong and competitive 2-party system. And, not one that houses the fearful fringe who can't accept the changes our country has been through and our increasing diversity - [insert cough] ahem - GOP

    * - WENDY DAVIS - GOVERNOR - *

     
  • Jake Buckner posted at 11:59 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 1580

    Geez I hate threads like this one. Pretty soon sverige will chime in, and all our top posters will once again be embroiled in controversy they can have little effect on...

    [beam]

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:56 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    The interstate highway system was originally proposed as a Dept of Defence project.
    Commercial trucking was an after thought.
    It was not for automobiles until it became the favorite pork project of politicians on both sides.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2908

    In other words, if ALL isn't a candidate, why throw a tantrum to ensure you get little, if anything you want when you could have had at least a lot of what you want.

    Of course, it may very well be that the people that stayed away believed that, in some way or another, they'd get more out an Obama presidency than Romney, but couldn't bring themselves to pull the "D" lever. Since they didn't bother to vote, we'll never know what was really going through their minds. My guess is that little of importance was, otherwise they'd have seen the importance of voting.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:35 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    For the people, of the people, by the people? Can only work if the people vote.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 10:20 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    I'm a long time Independent myself and proud of it. I saw a sticker on the back window of a vehicle parked at a local supermarket the other day with a picture of George with a stern look his face asking, "Do you miss me yet?"
    -
    I kept walking, thinking to myself, "Not Hardly!" I went on to think,..." I do however miss Ronald R,....and where is he?" "I got up to go to the refrigerator for a diet coke and some diet Ocean Spray Grape Juice, and came back and he was ...........gone. I looked around, and the man was gone! My kind of leader!
    -
    If anybody find somebody out there "LACK'EM" ...call Old JBG, Heah? (ET for hear).

     
  • gecroix posted at 9:48 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Dwight David Eisenhower was so utterly different from Barack Hussein Obama that they might well have been born on different planets.
    Eisenhower had a distinguished career successfully directing and leading millions of men before ever entering politics, commanding the defeat of Nazi Germany in North Africa and Europe, followed by service as the top dog in NATO.
    There is no written record of him ever being a community organizer, starting politics at a terrorist's house, or voting 'present' 95% of the time in.
    Compare the stark differentiation between a real leader and a blowhard with a king complex.
    Moving on, I personally pretty much agree with the author of the article, AND with whomever at the GDN put the title to it, even if it is just a tad overdone for the content of the message.
    One of the, if not THE, major accomplishments of any President ever was the establishment of the Interstate Highway System, which is not only a convenience and an enabler of untold trillions of dollars of commerce, but a strategic necessity allowing response at all levels to issues that arise requiring fast action. This infrastructure project of Ike's differs immensely from the faux ones proposed by Obama, in that for Ike the goal was to improve the nation with tangible, positive results benefitting everybody. For Obama, so far, the goal is to redistribute money to political backers on ideological projects, and call it infrastructure.
    Success vs failure. Vision vs wishes. Action vs talk. Performance vs politicking.
    As to the title, I agree fully, IF they keep making the same mistakes, sitting out an election, refusing to cast a vote because the chosen candidate is not an ideological clone of the voter. Or 'protest voting' by casting a vote for someone who cannot possibly win. BOTh of those things accomplish the SAME thing - they give one more 'vote' each to the opposition, because no vote is needed by them to be able to counter one against them. Doing these two things has the exact same effect as voting FOR the person you do NOT want to win.
    In politics it's not the votes you get that wins, it's the ones you don't have to match, and thus negate. Splitting the vote is what the left avoids like the plague, and what the right eats up like candy. If they keep this up, the Republicans will fail again.
    Right this moment, we'd have President Romney if the SAME people who voted for McCain in '08 had showed up and voted for the ONLY candidate running in '12 who could defeat the one running for re-election.
    How does your litmus testing and protesting look compared to the national destruction wrought by your insistence on your way or the highway? How ironic that you directly helped re-elect a man with that exact same mannerism.
    Karma is the second letter of the alphabet...
    I vote conservative independent. I could not care less what the Party label is, because there's not a dimes worth of difference between them when it comes to forgetting the promises once in office. BUT, here's a simple fact. SOMEBODY is going to win. You need to grit your teeth and get the one closest to what you like if perfection is not to be had, because doing anything else will get you back in the same 'royal' mess that doing that last time got us in today...

     
  • mickphalen posted at 9:47 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 302

    Strange, I thought President Eisenhower built the interstate system as a national defense highway - - it wasn't until the progressives enacted Johnson's "Great Society" that politicians (of both parties, unfortunately) began porking up, and creating, federal programs.

    The "Great Society", the growth of federal government, and other progressive subversions of the Constitution, led to a political system which looked to ways to direct that largess to their friends and supporters.

    That, IMHO, led to the tea party uprising.

     
  • Question posted at 8:00 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    Question Posts: 63

    Typical liberal democrat with a short memory. Your "party" had a clear majority for two years and elected to do nothing about infastructure. Instead they paid off their political cronies. No shovel ready jobs..."haha" goes the president....remember now?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:00 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2280

    Then Mr. Graham, I suggest you make out a check to the Federal Government. On the line that reads FOR: write Infrastructure and send it in. I bet it will be used for "pork" instead. I am not happy with all Republicans. I like the ones who hold the line on government spending to two things: Providing for the common defense and regulating interstate commerce. These are the Constitutional limitations on Federal Spending. Everything else is just "pork".