From the desk of Newt :)

Mottleydude said:
My issues were what was done with it. Initially I supported it. I thought some of the points it made were good. What I didn't expect was for Republicans to interpret this support as a rubber stamp endorsement of a far right wing agenda.
Click to expand...

Ah okay so you have no idea what it entailed.

Thanks.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I don't need to tell myself what, as a party memeber, I hear from other party members who pushed for a guy like Steele, a traditional conservative, to take the reins. The push for the GOP to become moderate these last few years is what has cost us, but the next election cycle will certainly tell all.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you are defining "conservative". If it means focusing on the "marriage" of Steve and Adam to the detriment of fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms then I would disagree with you 100%.

I am no milquetoast, but I know that radical changes that create government as the defining factor of "marriage" rather than each person's preacher is not "conservative". And I know we have failed, as a party on the whole, to curtail our own spending greed.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Silly! It's been the GOP behaving like democrats that have cost us, not fiscally conservative principles.
Click to expand...

Like hell. If it wasn't for your regressive economic policies combined with your irresponsible spending combined with an extremist foreign policy that has us involved in an immoral war.

If you think going further to the right is going to help the party then how do you explain why so many former Republicans like myself and Topspin and Socrtease, etc, have left the party?

You're in denial.
 
Damocles said:
It depends on how you are defining "conservative". If it means focusing on the "marriage" of Steve and Adam to the detriment of fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms then I would disagree with you 100%.

I am no milquetoast, but I know that radical changes that create government as the defining factor of "marriage" rather than each person's preacher is not "conservative". And I know we have failed, as a party on the whole, to curtail our own spending greed.
Click to expand...

Believing that the idea of traditional marriage is good for a society is a conservative concept in today’s world. It used to be that you never had to take a position it was assumed. Now if you don't want government to define it one way you have to fight to have them define it the other way.

The majority of Americans in this country do want a definition as being between one man and one woman.

The GOP does have many constituents who want a traditional definition, but what we saw in the CA voters, is that a number of democrats do as well. Nationally the numbers are even more in favor for a traditional definition than they were in CA. This means that many democrats and independents are on board for a traditional definition of marriage too.

So, in answer to your query, no I do not define conservative as being against Adam and Steve, but I and most other conservatives personally do not support homosexual marriage.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Believing that the idea of traditional marriage is good for a society is a conservative concept in today’s world. It used to be that you never had to take a position it was assumed. Now if you don't want government to define it one way you have to fight to have them define it the other way.

The majority of Americans in this country do want a definition as being between one man and one woman.

The GOP does have many constituents who want a traditional definition, but what we saw in the CA voters, is that a number of democrats do as well. Nationally the numbers are even more in favor for a traditional definition than they were in CA. This means that many democrats and independents are on board for a traditional definition of marriage too.

So, in answer to your query, no I do not define conservative as being against Adam and Steve, but I and most other conservatives personally do not support homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
You did not read. I said "to the detriment of fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms".

If you believe that this should be the focus of the party, then I believe you are part of the problem.

This should be secondary to limiting government power and fiscal responsibility. We have already seen the failure of a focus on this to the detriment of fiscal responsibility. It has given us the smallest minority I have ever seen in government. All the Ds have to do to take away the power of being against homosexual marriage is agree. Not even one of those running in the D primary that got past the first few states stated that they were in favor of homosexual marriage.

If this is what you think is important, then you already have a President that will support that. Obama has stated numerous times that he agrees with you on this issue.

It is time to focus on conservative government rather than attempting to maintain a majority by putting homosexual marriage onto a ballot to ensure religious votes. This time it failed, and it will continue to fail because the Ds are smart enough to read polls and simply agree with the majority on this issue. Either we win on ideas and we put the ideas into practice, carefully watching those we elect, or we will peter into the distance, a failed party never again to see the majority.
 
Damocles said:
You did not read. I said "to the detriment of fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms".

If you believe that this should be the focus of the party, then I believe you are part of the problem.

This should be secondary to limiting government power and fiscal responsibility. We have already seen the failure of a focus on this to the detriment of fiscal responsibility. It has given us the smallest minority I have ever seen in government. All the Ds have to do to take away the power of being against homosexual marriage is agree. Not even one of those running in the D primary that got past the first few states stated that they were in favor of homosexual marriage.

If this is what you think is important, then you already have a President that will support that. Obama has stated numerous times that he agrees with you on this issue.

It is time to focus on conservative government rather than attempting to maintain a majority by putting homosexual marriage onto a ballot to ensure religious votes. This time it failed, and it will continue to fail because the Ds are smart enough to read polls and simply agree with the majority on this issue. Either we win on ideas and we put the ideas into practice, carefully watching those we elect, or we will peter into the distance, a failed party never again to see the majority.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with emphasising a fiscally conservative platform as the foundation of the GOP. This said, traditional values folks are also a significant constituency within our party. They have long been represented by the GOP. To ignore them would be a grave error.

We lost our asses these last 2 years because of a successful PR campaign waged against an unpopular war. The smear campaigns against Bush and his administration and the economic downturn were the final nails in the coffin; not gay marriage.

After our losses in 2006 we saw republicans race to the middle, the act of desperate politicians. All of the polls and research conducted amongst party members have resulted in a re-awakening of the parties need to get back to the basics, which is shrinking governement, cutting taxes, and representing middle america. Newt is the guy who speaks to that. In his Contract with America, if you recall, he purposed to stay away from hot button issues within the party in order to focus on fiscal policy.
 
Don't underestimate the repercussions of an illegal occupation and killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I don't need to tell myself what, as a party memeber, I hear from other party members who pushed for a guy like Steele, a traditional conservative, to take the reins. The push for the GOP to become moderate these last few years is what has cost us, but the next election cycle will certainly tell all.
Click to expand...

To quote Ayn Rand, who was quite correct in pointing out that contradictions do not exist in reality. That if you find your self in a contradiction you must examine your premises as at least one of them will be wrong.

The contradiction here is that if what you are saying is true then how comes persons such a I, Solitary, Topspin, USC and Socrtease are no longer Republicans? Why have we left the party?

You're out look for 2010 is bleak unless you reform and quickly.
 
Mottleydude said:
To quote Ayn Rand, who was quite correct in pointing out that contradictions do not exist in reality. That if you find your self in a contradiction you must examine your premises as at least one of them will be wrong.

The contradiction here is that if what you are saying is true then how comes persons such a I, Solitary, Topspin, USC and Socrtease are no longer Republicans? Why have we left the party?

You're out look for 2010 is bleak unless you reform and quickly.
Click to expand...
USC didn't "leave the party", please.

That would be like Dano registering D for a while then "leaving" and making a big deal on how the D party "moved away from what he believed".
 
Mottleydude said:
To quote Ayn Rand, who was quite correct in pointing out that contradictions do not exist in reality. That if you find your self in a contradiction you must examine your premises as at least one of them will be wrong.

The contradiction here is that if what you are saying is true then how comes persons such a I, Solitary, Topspin, USC and Socrtease are no longer Republicans? Why have we left the party?

You're out look for 2010 is bleak unless you reform and quickly.
Click to expand...

Why you chose to leave is irrelevent. If you left because of an objection to conservative iedals then we are glad to be rid of you. If you voted for Obama that makes you a social liberal and you don't belong in the GOP.
 
Damocles said:
USC didn't "leave the party", please.

That would be like Dano registering D for a while then "leaving" and making a big deal on how the D party "moved away from what he believed".
Click to expand...

OK, You have a point there but my point is valid. I was a Republican for 24 years though the last 4 years I must admit I was a Rino as I was pretty alienated by that time but was holding out hope like Tabasco is doing.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Why you chose to leave is irrelevent. If you left because of an objection to conservative iedals then we are glad to be rid of you. If you voted for Obama that makes you a social liberal and you don't belong in the GOP.
Click to expand...

I chose to leave because there are to many ideological extemist fools like you who can't see the forest because of the trees. Being a conservative don't mean shit when the ships sinking. What matters is saving the ship and keeping a float. But then again, were back to the contradiction that your not facing. The Republican party is not being lead by conservatives and many of their ideals are not conservative but are politically reactionary ideals. These reactionary ideals are mostly failed and unworkable and those who support them are not facing reality. They have hurt the party and they have hurt the nation.
 
Mottleydude said:
I chose to leave because there are to many ideological extemist fools like you who can't see the forest because of the trees. Being a conservative don't mean shit when the ships sinking. What matters is saving the ship and keeping a float. But then again, were back to the contradiction that your not facing. The Republican party is not being lead by conservatives and many of their ideals are not conservative but are politically reactionary ideals. These reactionary ideals are mostly failed and unworkable and those who support them are not facing reality. They have hurt the party and they have hurt the nation.
Click to expand...

Blather blather blood and toil. Get over yourself.

Let's leave your I am an "idealogical extremist" crap alone for the time being and give you an opportunity to prove that the GOP is not being led by conservatives. Please show how.

BTW, did you vote Obama?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Blather blather blood and toil. Get over yourself.

Let's leave your I am an "idealogical extremist" crap alone for the time being and give you an opportunity to prove that the GOP is not being led by conservatives. Please show how.

BTW, did you vote Obama?
Click to expand...

I voted for Obama. I also Voted for Gore and Kerry while still a republican on the basis that I thought Bush was incompetent. I've been vindicated. I have also voted for Reagan twice and Bush Sr in 88 (the first vote I ever cast was in the 1980 primary for Bush Sr.).

Well George W. Bush is your first clue that the republicans are not being led by conservatives. George W. Bush is an authoritarian reactionary.
 
Mottleydude said:
I voted for Obama. I also Voted for Gore and Kerry while still a republican on the basis that I thought Bush was incompetent. I've been vindicated. I have also voted for Reagan twice and Bush Sr in 88 (the first vote I ever cast was in the 1980 primary for Bush Sr.).

Well George W. Bush is your first clue that the republicans are not being led by conservatives. George W. Bush is an authoritarian reactionary.
Click to expand...
As I said, if the only measure of "conservatism" is how strongly they oppose (deep superhero voice) "The Evil Marriage of Steve and Adam" (/deep superhero voice), then there is no more conservatism.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Obama does not support gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Duh. This was my point to you earlier. All they had to do to take the power away from the (superhero voice) Religious "Conservative" (/superhero voice) was to simply agree.

If this is the measure of "conservative" and the only thing of importance to them, then you've lost and will continue to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top