Republicans stopped being conservative, and paid the price

honestly, i see everyone here, and also on television, everyone really, claiming that "america is..." and then filling it in with descriptions of themselves. it's kinda funny.

i pay attention, close attention actually, to issue polling.

the question has always been will we ever get a leader who can marshall and then lead based on where americans really stand on issues...i don't know if that person is obama, but i suspect it might be. we'll see.

Americans don't know where they stand on issues. They want jobs, but then jew controlled think tanks tell them that's bad protectionism and they will be better off when their jobs get shipped overseas.

Basically they're guilted out of their own instinct to survive.
 
Americans don't know where they stand on issues. They want jobs, but then jew controlled think tanks tell them that's bad protectionism and they will be better off when their jobs get shipped overseas.

Or they want freedom and liberty, but welcome strip searches and restrictions on their movement because it makes them feel safer.
 
Americans don't know where they stand on issues. They want jobs, but then jew controlled think tanks tell them that's bad protectionism and they will be better off when their jobs get shipped overseas.

Basically they're guilted out of their own instinct to survive.
Them nasty jews! God if only you could come up with a solution for them jews huh? Someplace where you could put them all so they didn't affect us with their ratlike jew ways huh? You are such a fucking race baiter. I am suprised you haven't decried the election of Obama as the further weakening of of the White Race. Oh well White Pride World Wide huh?
 
Americans don't know where they stand on issues. They want jobs, but then jew controlled think tanks tell them that's bad protectionism and they will be better off when their jobs get shipped overseas.

Basically they're guilted out of their own instinct to survive.

Man, the instinct to survive must be much weaker than I thought.
 
Americans don't know where they stand on issues. They want jobs, but then jew controlled think tanks tell them that's bad protectionism and they will be better off when their jobs get shipped overseas.

Basically they're guilted out of their own instinct to survive.

Every single day AssHat's anti-Semitism becomes more and more apparent.

Antisemitism has always seemed like such a bizarre phenomena to me. I just don't get it.
 
Conservative and liberal, are as always, relative. To much of the world, EVEN UNDER AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY, we remain conservative. To this day we are a vehemently partisan nation. In the wake of one of the most unpopular presidents ever, and 80% of the country saying we are going in the wrong direction, republicans still managed to get around 47% of the vote. Gay marriage got banned in 3 more states, one being a state that voted obama. There are issues and values that run deep for a lot of people. To act as though this was a broad consensus from americans demanding new liberal policies is incredibly fallacious.

It all boils down to ENOUGH people sick of George bush that they wanted something completely fresh. But that's not everyone. Not by a long shot.
 
Conservative and liberal, are as always, relative. To much of the world, EVEN UNDER AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY, we remain conservative. To this day we are a vehemently partisan nation. In the wake of one of the most unpopular presidents ever, and 80% of the country saying we are going in the wrong direction, republicans still managed to get around 47% of the vote. Gay marriage got banned in 3 more states, one being a state that voted obama. There are issues and values that run deep for a lot of people. To act as though this was a broad consensus from americans demanding new liberal policies is incredibly fallacious.

It all boils down to ENOUGH people sick of George bush that they wanted something completely fresh. But that's not everyone. Not by a long shot.

as a side note I think two of the three states that banned gay marriage voted for Obama, Florida and California.
 
you know what guys - all this sound and fury and loud noises demanding it be known that in an election where the democrat garnered more electoral votes than george bush, who claimed a "mandate" ever did, the dem better make sure he governs center-right, is really not necessary.

it smells like fear.

if you're right, he'll lose congress in two years.

so whatcha all yellin over boys?
 
Yelling is part of the process to MAKE him lose.
Also, bush claiming a mandate was stupid as well.
 
Barack Obama will be our next President. A man so unabashedly socialistic, that he didn't even bother to deny it, and even asked "What's wrong with that?" in so many words.

And yes, he will be my President, too. I will support him as I supported George Bush... and I will oppose him on policy issues I disagree with, just as I opposed George Bush on exploding government spending, new entitlements, campaign finance "reform", and other such things. But none of this "He's not MY President" crap - that's for babies, disgruntled losers who can't handle real life, and is frankly unAmerican - the first time I've ever used that word about any political attitude.

I have too much respect for the Constitution, and the ageless wisdom and shrewd practical truths the Framers put into it, to deny one of its most fiundamental priciples: That both the people who vote for AND AGAINST an issue, agree to be bound by the election's outcome regardless, and work to support the decision of the whole once the votes are counted.

But how did this outcome happen? America is a fundamentally conservative country. Most of its citizens would never dream of walking into their neighbor's house, holding him up at gunpoint, and taking his hard-earned money to hand to others "for free". Nor would they ever demand that the neighbor be thrown in jail and lose his land for draining a marsh on that privately held property. Nor would they ever give condoms to their 13-year-old daughters, or encourage their kids to be lazy and wait for government to take care of them. That those same Americans then turn around and vote for government officials who will do exactly those things, remains an enduring mystery.

I suspect it has to do with the idea that, if their only choices in an election is to vote between two liberals (as yesterday's election was), they may as well vote for a real one, rather than one who has to compromise himself and betray his friends to be liberal. Nobody likes, or trusts, a turncoat. And at least the real liberal promises them more goodies, which they may as well grab since they aren't going to get what they really want from either candidate.

The only landslides in most of our living memories, have come when a genuine conservative who did NOT compromise his principles, ran against liberals. They happened in 1980 and 1984,and congressionally in 1994. In those elections, the American people were offered a clear choice: Smaller government that would stay out of their way and confine itself to the things government was originally designed for (protecting our rights), versus politicians who made it clear that they would expand government and extend it into the most private areas of their lives (and charge them for the privilege). And the American people's response was equally clear, every time: A thunderous rejection of the big-government advocates, in favor of the smaller-government advocates.

Only in the 1990s and 2000s, did the picture become murkier as both sides started expanding government and offering the voters goodies taxed away from other people. When Republicans won, they did so by narrower and narrower (and sometimes negative) margins; and even when Democrats won, they never got a majority of the popular vote, until yesterday, and then only 52%.

Fast forward to today. The Republicans need to read the writing on the wall. They've tried being liberal. They've tried compromising with liberals. They've tried being nice guys. And they've sunk further and further into the mud, every time, without exception.

They need to realize that the American people don't want nice guys. They don't want compromisers - note that they keep voting for liberals who have NO history of compromising their ideas. And historically they don't want liberals, either: when they have a choice, they vote for a genuine conservative every time. They only vote for liberals when that's all that both candidates offer.

What Americans want, is a government that protects their rights. And they don't mind when that government is uncompromising about it. In fact, they do mind when government does compromise on that ideal.

In other words, the American people have not changed much. THEY WANT CONSERVATISM. The Republican party has offered them everything BUT that for the last twenty years... and look at where it's goitten them.

Again, Republicans need to read the writing on the wall. They can't (or shouldn't) out-liberal the liberals - people will choose a real one over a fake one, when those are the only choices. But when they have a clear choice between big government and small, low taxes versus high, freedom and personal responsibilities versus nanny-state cradle-to-grave government "care", rigorous national defense versus compromise and appeasement of our foreign enemies, they choose conservatism every time, and by WIDE margins.

We need to start with CONSERVATIVE leaders in government, who will swing the party toward the ideal mentioned above. And if some liberal Republicans (some call them "neocons") get upset and threaten to leave the party... good riddance. Far more real conservatives will join, than will leave, since America has far more of the former than the latter within its borders.

America is a fundamentally conservative country, and always has been. America needs a party that reflects that fact... to make up for the fact that they don't have one now, and haven't for twenty years.

Republicans stopped being conservative long ago, and paid the price. They'd better take the hint.

You're an idiot. Keep rationalizing this shit and the republican party will cease to exist as a relevant political entity.

You know nothing of American history if you think we are a fundamentally conservative nation. We are the worlds beacon for libralism.
 
Isn't it awesome that they are now trying to label the most conservative of the conservative groups, neo-conservatives, as liberal?

This is just like how they try to brand nazism as left wing. It just ain't gonna fly faggot. Up is not down. Left is not right. It's just truth that all the most wrong and unsavory elements of human nature are present on the right side of the spectrum .
 
Every single day AssHat's anti-Semitism becomes more and more apparent.

Antisemitism has always seemed like such a bizarre phenomena to me. I just don't get it.

It is rampant. It was a factor used agains Obama.

his middle name is Hussein, he is a muslim, etc...
Antisemitism is not just against jews, but all semetic people. Ie arabs and such.


Just nuke em all and let god sort em out.
 
It is rampant. It was a factor used agains Obama.

his middle name is Hussein, he is a muslim, etc...
Antisemitism is not just against jews, but all semetic people. Ie arabs and such.


Just nuke em all and let god sort em out.

Antisemitism is specifically against Jews. If you try to literally reconstruct the word you could get that it's against all semitic people, but if you literally start using it that way in conversation as if it were a plain and indisputable fact you're just going to confuse people.
 
Antisemitism is specifically against Jews. If you try to literally reconstruct the word you could get that it's against all semitic people, but if you literally start using it that way in conversation as if it were a plain and indisputable fact you're just going to confuse people.

Look up the definition dude.

the joos have pretty much coopted it for their own use though. But technically I am correct.
 
Last edited:
As I said it has been co-opted. Look up semitic.

I know the definition of semitic.

But look at this note:

Usage notes

Though Semitic refers in a broader sense to those who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians), the term anti-semitism has historically referred to prejudice against Jews alone. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim) now favor the unhyphenated antisemitism in order to emphasize that the word should be read as a single unified term, not as a meaningful root word-prefix combination.[1][2][3] See Wikipedia: Antisemitism:Etymology and Usage
 
Back
Top