So Republicans Don't Have A Voice...

Threedee said:
Yeah, there are several reasons why I think he'll get the nod. First, he will esentially be another moderate type, like McCain, except he won't have age, cancer, and party rivalries as non-sequitors to be used against him. Secondly, Huckabee will likely screw over whoever the other major front runner is again by running strong in the South (the way he did last time) - that person will likely be Palin, who will also be the candidate of the neocons, and also shares Huckabee's populist rhetoric. These three candidates are energetic and popular, which really won't leave room for anyone else be they Hunter, Pawlenty, Santorum, et. al.
Click to expand...

Tell me, HOW exactly, is Jindal a moderate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Positions_on_selected_social_and_political_issues

Jindal is an asian Sarah Palin. Fascist just like the rest of the Republicans.
 
Mottleydude said:
Aint that the truth. If Republicans don't have a voice in our government it's their own damned fault for putting ideological extremism in front of the nations best interest. They had power for 6 years and denied not only the opposition a voice but even the moderates in their own party a voice. If Republicans are with out a voice, it's their own damned fault and my heart pumps piss for them. That's the problem with losing your credibility. You play hell earning it back.

But that's a strawman. Republicans are hardly with out a voice. They control one branch of government (the judiciary) and they can hamstring another via the filibuster (legislative branch). Are Republicans in a weak position? Yes, but hardly voiceless.
Click to expand...

it is not a strawman darla's cheerleader...someone, maybe more than one, on this site made that argument...reread the opening post and you will see i said that. do keep up.
 
Republicans are just being unpatriotic by not supporting their president in a time of war and terrorist threats to America :usflag:
 
In response to the original post of the threat.

Yurt, you sound as if Republicans are automatically entitled to a voice. That to me is complete bullshit and contrary to all things conservative. If we want a voice, I say we haul ass in 2010 and 2012 and give ourselves a voice.
 
Threedee said:
In response to the original post of the threat.

Yurt, you sound as if Republicans are automatically entitled to a voice. That to me is complete bullshit and contrary to all things conservative. If we want a voice, I say we haul ass in 2010 and 2012 and give ourselves a voice.
Click to expand...


well said, 3D... your party and our country would be so much better off if more folks understood that.
 
Threedee said:
In response to the original post of the threat.

Yurt, you sound as if Republicans are automatically entitled to a voice. That to me is complete bullshit and contrary to all things conservative. If we want a voice, I say we haul ass in 2010 and 2012 and give ourselves a voice.
Click to expand...

did the democrats hush their voice when the republicans were in the majority?
 
Yurt said:
did the democrats hush their voice when the republicans were in the majority?
Click to expand...

Yes many of them did out of fear of being labeled unamerican, unpatriotic, traitor,etc.

I have little respect for those who bowed to the harsh rhetoric of the right.

A very regretable chapter in American history.
 
Threedee said:
Doesn't matter, we had to power to push forward our agenda, and more often than not, chose to sell ourselves short.
Click to expand...

that still doesn't mean republicans don't have a voice. as long as there is just one republican voted in to represent his or her constituents, that person has a voice.

though the dems were in a minority, they made their voice loud and it worked. this is not about "they did it too", this is about using our voice despite the fact we may not have the votes necessary to get our agenda through.
 
Yurt said:
that still doesn't mean republicans don't have a voice. as long as there is just one republican voted in to represent his or her constituents, that person has a voice.

though the dems were in a minority, they made their voice loud and it worked. this is not about "they did it too", this is about using our voice despite the fact we may not have the votes necessary to get our agenda through.
Click to expand...

And they do have a voice - one vote in their committee (and possibly subcommittees) and one vote on the floor. That is still a "voice," even if they are getting shafted from making speeches, contributing significantly to drafts, having their opinions considered, etc.
 
Threedee said:
In response to the original post of the threat.

Yurt, you sound as if Republicans are automatically entitled to a voice. That to me is complete bullshit and contrary to all things conservative. If we want a voice, I say we haul ass in 2010 and 2012 and give ourselves a voice.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
And they do have a voice - one vote in their committee (and possibly subcommittees) and one vote on the floor. That is still a "voice," even if they are getting shafted from making speeches, contributing significantly to drafts, having their opinions considered, etc.
Click to expand...

your last post is my point. i think we are in agreement here. your two posts seem to me to conflict.
 
Yurt said:
your last post is my point. i think we are in agreement here. your two posts seem to me to conflict.
Click to expand...

Well they don't. One says they are not entitled to what they cannot take for themselves, and the second points out that they have a built-in voice by the nature of being able to vote, although it is miniscule clearly not what you meant by "voice."
 
Threedee said:
Well they don't. One says they are not entitled to what they cannot take for themselves, and the second points out that they have a built-in voice by the nature of being able to vote, although it is miniscule clearly not what you meant by "voice."
Click to expand...

sorry, i did not make myself clear. my point was that, though there vote may not make policy, their voice can still represent those that elected them. their voice, though in the minority, can still be heard.

our country has a history of voting in one party and then some years later voting in the other party. speaking mainly of dems and repubs. the democrats did not give up their voice despite not always having the numbers to make their vote win, if you will. and it was a good strategy, of course the conservatives losing their conservative values helped, nonetheless, their constant whining about bush et al. caught on. if they would have kept quiet and not used their voice, it is unlikely anyone would know what the dems think.

i would never advocate that any party, no matter how small, lose their voice.
 
Yurt said:
that still doesn't mean republicans don't have a voice. as long as there is just one republican voted in to represent his or her constituents, that person has a voice.

though the dems were in a minority, they made their voice loud and it worked. this is not about "they did it too", this is about using our voice despite the fact we may not have the votes necessary to get our agenda through.
Click to expand...

again, it's a strawman argument. Being in the minority hardly means you are with out a voice. You may not have much power or influence and you may not be heard as often as you like but a voice you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top