I'm a Republican, but I don't know why.

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Confused Republican apologist writes:

I’m against the Iraq war, but I support the surge. I think the Iraq war was wrong, but I’m voting for John McCain. We may kill tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, with foreknowledge of the consequences of our actions. But, we don’t mean or intend to kill them, and we can sleep easy at night knowing this.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in global warming. And I’m not saying there’s global cooling. But, if you take a ruler, and draw a straight line between one year and the 1990s, and one year in this decade, it shows a cooling trend. But, I’m not anti-science! Don’t label me as an anti-science wingnut! I don’t believe humans are causing global warming, but I’m also not saying the worldwide scientific community is wrong about that. I might have denied for 20 years that global warming was even happening, but then again maybe it is. But, maybe, with my ruler and my straight line between two data points, the earth is cooling. Who knows!! I’m not anti-science damn you, but I will vote for a party and for candidates who oppose stem cell research on moral grounds, and who deny global warming, and who advocate teaching creation science in public school science classes.

I’m virulently opposed to massive government spending. But, I support and will vote for a party who committed to continuing us in a three trillion dollar war in Iraq. Even though there weren’t WMD, or collaborative Bathiist ties to al qaeda.

And I don’t think there should be massive tax cuts, without commensurate massive spending cuts. But, I knowingly voted for a guy in 2000 who promised that we could have BOTH massive tax cuts, and massive spending increases in healthcare, military, and education.
 
Cypress said:
Confused Republican apologist writes:

I’m against the Iraq war, but I support the surge. I think the Iraq war was wrong, but I’m voting for John McCain. We may kill tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, with foreknowledge of the consequences of our actions. But, we don’t mean or intend to kill them, and we can sleep easy at night knowing this.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in global warming. And I’m not saying there’s global cooling. But, if you take a ruler, and draw a straight line between one year and the 1990s, and one year in this decade, it shows a cooling trend. But, I’m not anti-science! Don’t label me as an anti-science wingnut! I don’t believe humans are causing global warming, but I’m also not saying the worldwide scientific community is wrong about that. I might have denied for 20 years that global warming was even happening, but then again maybe it is. But, maybe, with my ruler and my straight line between two data points, the earth is cooling. Who knows!! I’m not anti-science damn you, but I will vote for a party and for candidates who oppose stem cell research on moral grounds, and who deny global warming, and who advocate teaching creation science in public school science classes.

I’m virulently opposed to massive government spending. But, I support and will vote for a party who committed to continuing us in a three trillion dollar war in Iraq. Even though there weren’t WMD, or collaborative Bathiist ties to al qaeda.

And I don’t think there should be massive tax cuts, without commensurate massive spending cuts. But, I knowingly voted for a guy in 2000 who promised that we could have BOTH massive tax cuts, and massive spending increases in healthcare, military, and education.
Click to expand...

So you are suggestion people only would have become Republican in 2000 then. That they would not have held certain policy beliefs prior. The way you phrase your argument is weak. You are trying to argue Bush doesn't follow the basic tenants of the Republican Party. A lot of people have complained about that.
 
uscitizen said:
Was that an SF quote Cypress ?
Click to expand...

In his warped little strawman world it is. It is his way of lashing out and trying to be proud of himself for a brief moment. In reality, we all know he is simply a coward who continually creates one strawman after another to avoid addressing anyone who dares oppose his precious consensus....

Note... Gumby still has yet to address that global warming post with anything other than a strawman.
 
Tell me US... how does this disagree with any scientist? It does not dispute that global warming has occured.... We all know Cypress will continue to ignore my REAL position.

Great.... show me any one scientist that would dispute anything I have stated....

1) Global warming has occured over the past 50 years.

2) The period in the 90's saw a dramatic increase to record temperatures.

3) From 1998-2007 we saw the warmest decade on record as those record temperatures were maintained.

4) 2005 was the warmest year on record druing that warmest decade on record.

There... are you still with me? Good.

Now.... find one that will disagree that average global temperatures in 1998 and 2007 were the same.

Nope... can't do that either can you?
 
cawacko said:
So you are suggestion people only would have become Republican in 2000 then. That they would not have held certain policy beliefs prior. The way you phrase your argument is weak. You are trying to argue Bush doesn't follow the basic tenants of the Republican Party. A lot of people have complained about that.
Click to expand...


Bush did exactly what he promised to do. And he had 99.9% republican support from congress to do it. Cut taxes, mainly on investment income and for the wealthy, and plunder the treasury and spend more money on the military, privitizing healthcare for the elderly, and No Child Left behind. And he gave republicans the war they wanted.

I didn't see waves of protest from republicans about all this, until bush's poll numbers dipped below 30%, and he cost them congress in 2006. And I still don't see any significant numbers of republicans in congress oppossing him on anything.
 
Cypress said:
Bush did exactly what he promised to do. And he had 99.9% republican support from congress to do it. Cut taxes, mainly on investment income and for the wealthy, and plunder the treasury and spend more money on the military, privitizing healthcare for the elderly, and No Child Left behind. And he gave republicans the war they wanted.

I didn't see waves of protest from republicans about all this, until bush's poll numbers dipped below 30%, and he cost them congress in 2006. And I still don't see any significant numbers of republicans in congress oppossing him on anything.
Click to expand...

Has any politician done exactly what you've wanted?
 
As for the rest of his post...

1) I fully support stem cell research. I just don't think every line of stem cell research HAS to be funded by the Federal government. (Of course Cypress spins this as my wanting to eliminate all Federal R&D)

2) I do believe the globe has warmed over the past fifty years.

3) I am agnostic, so I could care less if creationism is taught or not. For Cypress... this means I do not care one way or the other.

4) Yes, I am for tax cuts when you have corresponding spending cuts. Bush did not say he was going to increase OVERALL spending. Bottom line, Bush has been a fiscal conservatives worst nightmare.
 
cawacko said:
Has any politician done exactly what you've wanted?
Click to expand...

that's a silly question cawacko :)

I expect any president, to competently execute his constitutional obligations and act prudently on behalf of the public welfare. They don't always do that.

But, at a minimum, I certainly don't expect wholesale shredding of the constitution, war crimes on a massive scale, torture, and a completely cynical plundering of the federal treasury and our nation's fiscal order. That's what bush did. And I'm not of the camp that it was all an "accident". I think Bush gave you guys exactly what you voted for (for the most part), and the fact that this ideology and policies failed, is a reflection of the republican party. Not a reflection merely on Bush's idiocy.
 
Cypress said:
that's a silly question cawacko :)

I expect any president, to competently execute his constitutional obligations and act prudently on behalf of the public welfare. They don't always do that.

But, at a minimum, I certainly don't expect wholesale shredding of the constitution, war crimes on a massive scale, torture, and a completely cynical plundering of the federal treasury and our nation's fiscal order. That's what bush did. And I'm not of the camp that it was all an "accident". I think Bush gave you guys exactly what you voted for (for the most part), and the fact that this ideology and policies failed, is a reflection of the republican party. Not a reflection merely on Bush's idiocy.
Click to expand...


That is how you were asking the question. You are phrasing your beliefs of the Bush administration with your own political ideology and biases. I or others may view it differently.

The argument that it is a failed ideology doesn't hold weight.
 
Epicurus said:
Bush isn't an ideology.

He is a corrupt, moronic individual.

George Bush failed conservatism, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Hmm strange that virtually all the republicans in congress continue to back the guy.
But it is just bush by himself, strange concept.
 
uscitizen said:
Hmm strange that virtually all the republicans in congress continue to back the guy.
But it is just bush by himself, strange concept.
Click to expand...

You're a moron so I know this won't be worth my time, but just to play along with your idiocy for a moment give me an example.
 
The republican ideology changed with Bush. Now if virtually all republicans had not supported him you would have a valid argument.
 
Conservatism, on its own, is doomed to fail; at least conservatism as it is defined by modern conservatives.

I would say the same of strict liberalism.

The modern conservative philosophy is basically "keep your hands off it, and let the market work it out." The free market, on it's own, will not work out things like healthcare or environmental protections. On the flip side, neither will complete gov't control.

There really does have to be a healthy balance of the 2; moderates get slammed for being "wishy washy," but centrism is probably where it's at....
 
uscitizen said:
The republican ideology changed with Bush. Now if virtually all republicans had not supported him you would have a valid argument.
Click to expand...

A large majority still do and that is why you have not seen the Republican candidates bad-mouthing him.

Those are the facts and there is only one conclusion. Republicans enjoy war. They can run from it. They can squeal, they can laugh, they can say "THE DEMS DO IT TOO!'. But the facts is the facts.
 
uscitizen said:
The republican ideology changed with Bush. Now if virtually all republicans had not supported him you would have a valid argument.
Click to expand...

So because most Democrats supported Bill Clinton does that mean progressive liberal ideology is dead? That is what your comparison is saying.
 
Onceler said:
Conservatism, on its own, is doomed to fail; at least conservatism as it is defined by modern conservatives.

I would say the same of strict liberalism.

The modern conservative philosophy is basically "keep your hands off it, and let the market work it out." The free market, on it's own, will not work out things like healthcare or environmental protections. On the flip side, neither will complete gov't control.

There really does have to be a healthy balance of the 2; moderates get slammed for being "wishy washy," but centrism is probably where it's at....
Click to expand...

But the thing is, strict adherence to free market ideology and weakening (eventual, ending) of the social safety net, though a radically right ideology, is treated as mainstream by our media.

What liberals do you know who propose eliminating the free market and moving to a truly socialist society?

What liberals advocate for is a strong social safety net, and checks on so-called free trade, reflecting concern for the laborer, the poor, and the environment. That is NOT the opposite of the radical right position routinely espoused. It is treated that way, but it is NOT. It is in fact, a centrist position.

The actual opposite of the radical right ideology, would be out and out socialism, and you find me one proponent of socialism as an economic system who is getting a platform in main stream media.

The fact is, a centrist liberal position has been painted as the “left”. But it’s no such thing. And that is how the power elites are getting away with screwing not just the poor, not just the low income, but the middle class in this country. Because they have been allowed to frame a mainstream ideology as radically leftist, and a radical right ideology as mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top