Politicians

[Sam Dunham]

Just another example of how they are in it for thier own interest and not that of Principles is Specter. This Old guy that talks like he has a jawbreaker in his mouth is a real suck butt for his own personal gain everytime he chooses to be on any team that he thinks will Win . He has changed his party again, back to a Democrat because he has checked out the data for the next primary and believes he would get beaten if he runs as a Republican. What a superficial career politician example he shown to be. I hope the Pennsylvania people votes his butt out for the phony he is. These guys are just backscratchers to each other when it comes to the legislative agenda. OK, give me this and I will give you that. They are weak kneed puppets of thier own agenda!

[Papabull]

I wish every fence-straddling Republocrat would go ahead and set things right and change their party affiliation to the democrat party so the Republican party can get back to it's roots instead of trying to be "Democrat lite".

[CarolinaBob]

Spector is showing his real color, brown like in a #urd. "Jack Kemp would be alive if he voted with the libs!"

[Heathen]

From what I've been reading, Specter isn't receiving a warm welcome from the average democrat.
He was sure to lose in the Penn. GOP primary, he has a 50/50 chance running as a dem. At his age, I figure it a last ditch effort at one more term.

I can name more than a few Dems who have switched to the GOP, don't hear any name calling and whining about them.:)

[Flatbow1]

Spector will now be a liberal under the DEM'S instesd of the GOP.
I've never liked his political stance.
A lot of Democrats in the past have switched to the Repub's because the Demo's got so liberal......now there aint a whole lotta difference.

[raisins]

I wish every fence-straddling Republocrat would go ahead and set things right and change their party affiliation to the democrat party so the Republican party can get back to it's roots instead of trying to be "Democrat lite".

I agree!

[CJ5]

RINOs and Blue Dogs......each more like the other party than their own...

[CJ5]

Personally, I think the Democrat's hold on power is more tenuous than they will admit, despite all the chest thumping and cockiness of late. It wasn't that long ago when they were losing, and there was talk of their message not resonating......and how the radical left was destroying them. Some people have short memories...

They have the same problem the Republicans have (base vs. middle), and the same risks. The Reps got drunk with power and it cost them..........same thing will happen with the Dems.

[raisins]

Personally, I think the Democrat's hold on power is more tenuous than they will admit, despite all the chest thumping and cockiness of late. It wasn't that long ago when they were losing, and there was talk of their message not resonating......and how the radical left was destroying them. Some people have short memories...

They have the same problem the Republicans have (base vs. middle), and the same risks. The Reps got drunk with power and it cost them..........same thing will happen with the Dems.


Your sources of info are saying these things, many others aren't and weren't.

[Free Range]

Your sources of info are saying these things, many others aren't and weren't.

So Raisins, who do you identify with more, the more extreme left or the more moderate libs?

[Larry Hatfield]

Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour

[CJ5]

Your sources of info are saying these things, many others aren't and weren't.

Uh huh.....;)

[Sam Dunham]

A lot of the problem is related to sources of infoormation. This is directly in line with what the liberal media wants, to base your belief system on information generated in the media sources. I am my own source and believe based on the information I hear and see, then form my beliefs around what I see as Jive Turkey Bullcrap, and What I see as the truth. Most of the Politicians are based on the JTBC, which is what Specter has proven for the second time. Rhetoric is JTBC. Very few Walk the Walk.

[raisins]

So Raisins, who do you identify with more, the more extreme left or the more moderate libs?

I hate to give myself or the way I think a label. I think the idea of political parties or ideologies a little silly (like having to organize all music into country, rock, etc). I tend to agree more with democrats, so that is what my party affiliation is currently. The extreme left is just as loony as the extreme right (although the extreme right scares me more), both have good ideas sometimes though.

[Free Range]

I hate to give myself or the way I think a label. I think the idea of political parties or ideologies a little silly (like having to organize all music into country, rock, etc). I tend to agree more with democrats, so that is what my party affiliation is currently. The extreme left is just as loony as the extreme right (although the extreme right scares me more), both have good ideas sometimes though.

Since you don’t have enough backbone to answer the question directly I will assume by your round about way of answering it you think of your self as a moderate. Since you don’t like labels, should we start calling you the artist formally known as Raisins?

Which brings us to the post you were replying to that prompted my post. I don’t know how old you are, but if you don’t remember when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate during the Clinton Administration and then Bush gaining the Presidency, you must be a youngster. Because back then all the talk was about how the libs have lost their way, and had lost touch with the American people. The press (the so called main stream media) were so upset you would have thought the end of the world was coming. Some were saying it was the death of the Liberal party, and in a way it was, just look at the campaign BHO ran, he tried to make himself into this middle of the road reflection of America, of course those that didn’t vote for him knew better, and his actions so far in office have proved us right. The only way a Lib can get elected is to lie about where they rally stand.

I didn’t vote for BHO, but seriously thought about it, because this is exactly what we need to get the Conservative message back to the people. Bush was no Conservative, and BHO is as far from being a moderate as Bush is from being a Conservative. I predict that at the end of BHO’s reign we will see another Regan like Conservative, maybe even from a third party, come to power.

[CJ5]

The press (the so called main stream media) were so upset you would have thought the end of the world was coming. Some were saying it was the death of the Liberal party......

Didn't you hear? They never said that....:rolleyes:


the only way a Lib can get elected is to lie about where they rally stand

There it is.......

[Dartwick]

The guy switched parties because he felt he could win re-election if he did. He was rather up-front about it. He seems to be voting pretty much the same as always.

I have no idea what the OP is ranting about. I dont particularly agree with Spector often and on some things I strongly disagree, but the guy is stand up honest compared to most politicians.

[Dartwick]

I wish every fence-straddling Republocrat would go ahead and set things right and change their party affiliation to the democrat party so the Republican party can get back to it's roots instead of trying to be "Democrat lite".


It seems to me the modern Republican "roots" included the very rich, anti-communists(as in "kill the Russians and Chinese") and racist southerners.
Which of these roots do we want to go back to?

Frankly Im sick of the rich. They bought of congress to get free trade and and screwed over the working class in America.

The communists are dead. Ya you can bitch about socialism, but its not scary like Reds with tanks.

And the South isnt nearly as racist as it was in the 50s through 70s(thankfully.)


The Republican party cant to go back to its roots. It needs to get a new identity. Right now its its being spit between rich social liberals and middle class social conservatives.
Its a combination that doesnt work any more mainly because the middle class realizes their economic future was sold to the rich by party leaders when they embraced free-trade.

[Free Range]

It seems to me the modern Republican "roots" included the very rich, anti-communists(as in "kill the Russians and Chinese") and racist southerners.
Which of these roots do we want to go back to?

Frankly Im sick of the rich. They bought of congress to get free trade and and screwed over the working class in America.

The communists are dead. Ya you can bitch about socialism, but its not scary like Reds with tanks.

And the South isnt nearly as racist as it was in the 50s through 70s(thankfully.)


The Republican party cant to go back to its roots. It needs to get a new identity. Right now its its being spit between rich social liberals and middle class social conservatives.
Its a combination that doesnt work any more mainly because the middle class realizes their economic future was sold to the rich by party leaders when they embraced free-trade.


Help me out here my history is a little weak who was in office when NAFTA was signed?

[Dartwick]

It was done with wide Republican and Democratic support - both Clinton and Bush supported it and it was ratified by both Republican and Democratic senators.

The Liberal end of the Democratic party likes free trade because it help the poorest people in other countries and it tends to prevent wars. The rich Republicans like it because it helps helps people proportionally to their investment in large corporations.


Now I answered your questions so why dont you clarify if you actually disagree with me or if you just trying to do the partisan politics thing.

[Larry Hatfield]

When Was NAFTA Started?:
NAFTA was signed by U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17 and the Senate by 60 to 38 on November 20. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1,1994. Although it was started by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: History.com, NAFTA Signed into Law, December 8, 1993.
How Was NAFTA Started?:
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Regan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agrees with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)

[vermonster13]

Dartwick the Republican Party roots go back to Lincoln. So perhaps you need to revise your statements. We can all play that game, the Democratic Party is actually older then the Republican and was the pro-slavery party.

[Bowcephalus]

"I dont particularly agree with Spector often and on some things I strongly disagree, but the guy is stand up honest compared to most politicians."



You mean compared to Murtha. He and the sphincter are self aggrandizing whack jobs.

[Dartwick]

I said "modern" in reference to the Republican party. Im not the one who brought up "roots."
If you disagree with what I said please list what you consider the roots of the party. And I dont mean list your personal ideals. I mean lost what ever the party was that set it apart.

[Free Range]

It was done with wide Republican and Democratic support - both Clinton and Bush supported it and it was ratified by both Republican and Democratic senators.

The Liberal end of the Democratic party likes free trade because it help the poorest people in other countries and it tends to prevent wars. The rich Republicans like it because it helps helps people proportionally to their investment in large corporations.


Now I answered your questions so why dont you clarify if you actually disagree with me or if you just trying to do the partisan politics thing.

Oh I agree it was done with support from both parties. In your first post, the one I responded to, you made it seem that the Democrats hands were clean in the Free Trade arena.

[Free Range]

I said "modern" in reference to the Republican party. Im not the one who brought up "roots."
If you disagree with what I said please list what you consider the roots of the party. And I dont mean list your personal ideals. I mean lost what ever the party was that set it apart.

So if the “modern” Republican is a rich, anti-communists, racist, what do you consider the trade marks for the modern Democrate?

[Bowcephalus]

Careful there Free, Dart hasn't fully grasped the concept behind contradictories. He has difficulty with comparative reasoning.....

[Free Range]

I said "modern" in reference to the Republican party. Im not the one who brought up "roots."
If you disagree with what I said please list what you consider the roots of the party. And I dont mean list your personal ideals. I mean lost what ever the party was that set it apart.

Are you talking about what sets the Republican party apart from the Democrat party, or what sets the Conservative “roots” apart from the liberals?

Here is my answer if you mean the latter. Conservatives rely on the individual, and liberals rely on the government. Conservatives, less spending, less government, more self responsibility. Liberals, more spending, more government, more government reliability.

[Bowcephalus]

"government reliability"


Oxymoronic, what might well be referred to as "contradictory".

********************
Edit.... let's leave it at that.... "Again, not Dart's best subject." really wasn't necessary, so let's try to talk withou taking cheap shots at each other.

[Free Range]

"government reliability"


Oxymoronic, what might well be referred to as "contradictory". Again, not Dart's best subject.

Now that is funny, I don't care who you are, get-r-done

[Dartwick]

So if the “modern” Republican is a rich, anti-communists, racist, what do you consider the trade marks for the modern Democrate?


I didnt say thats what the party is. I listed what I think the "roots" of the modern party are.

I would say the roots of the modern Democratic party are basically the civil rights movement, unions, anti-war and the well-fare state.

I think both parties were radically reformed in the 60s and the changes since then have been gradual. I think the Republican party has shifted much more in the last 40 years than the Democratic party though but only in small steps.

[Dartwick]

"government reliability"


Oxymoronic, what might well be referred to as "contradictory". Again, not Dart's best subject.

OK personal attack here. I didnt even say that.

[Bowcephalus]

I think you missed the point Dart.....Went right over your head........

[Bowcephalus]

Free said it in response to you, I defined it for you, and you still fail to grasp the flow of the conversation......LMAO.....

[Bowcephalus]

Take a deeeeeep breath Dart..........
read, comprehend, formulate a rebuttal, type it, proofread it, THEN............,


post it.


No need to qualify your "personal attack" in my case there Dart. You give far more weight to your posts than do I....;)

[raisins]

It makes little sense to claim any gravitas from what your political party was or did in the somewhat distant past. The membership, ideology, etc. of these entities shift considerably with time.

[vermonster13]

Very true raisins. Some even shift as soon as they are elected.

[Bowcephalus]

"The membership, ideology, etc. of these entities shift considerably with time. "
I'd say that depends on your particulars Raisins. You look back at the economic and war issues and the democrats(Wilson, FDR, Johnson) have a pretty steady record for the 20th century. Socially and ecologically they've become even more radicalized.

[Sam Dunham]

The "Roots" of the party are those who have consistantly voted and supported all legislation which enforces the constitution and it's intent. They have also been consistant in Moral issues, and second ammend rights. They have also been very objective in seeing through the scams that the libbies try to inflict on Small business and Big Government. Real Americans support Capitalism, not Socialism. Libbies want bigger Government and less private expansion by the small business owners by tagging on more red tape to the LLC's etc. to make small business owners suffer monetarily. Government control and programs equal more Government and more control over your personal life and puupet like control over the individual. Libbies say "give em life, Conservatives say" give em the needle". The only way to truly stop crime and harm to innocents is to have a strong judicail system that supports Capitol punishment. Warnings only last a little while! Now here we go to another Supreme court justice that I'm sure will be a Libbie that support the next gun or ammo ban, and let all the illegals have full amnesty with benefits with the taxes and social security I have paid all my life. I think Reagan pretty much represents what I would call "Grass Roots".

[raisins]

"The membership, ideology, etc. of these entities shift considerably with time. "
I'd say that depends on your particulars Raisins. You look back at the economic and war issues and the democrats(Wilson, FDR, Johnson) have a pretty steady record for the 20th century. Socially and ecologically they've become even more radicalized.

I'm talking about repubs claiming Lincoln as their mantle, as if that's relevant to today's (neo)conservative party.

[vermonster13]

You really don't understand the Conservative Ideals, do you. There are so few true conservatives in today's politics though that I can understand your confusion. Folks grabbing at such claims mostly do so for votes as do so many liberal candidates. Very few of either group ever does a true follow through and thus the mess our nation is in.

[Papabull]

I'm talking about repubs claiming Lincoln as their mantle, as if that's relevant to today's (neo)conservative party.

No shit. Hence the reason why the reublicans need to get back to their roots - small government/more state power and less fed power/less spending/lower taxes/equality for all.

[vermonster13]

The true roots of the Party Robert and I couldn't agree more. The Republican Party was the Party of the African American at the time also and got them the vote, problem was most didn't vote and to remain viable they had to grow a base that did, hence the movement to supporting American commerce and fundamental values.

[Free Range]

I'm talking about repubs claiming Lincoln as their mantle, as if that's relevant to today's (neo)conservative party.

Kind of like the Democrats claiming…………. Oh that’s right there is no Democrate President worth claiming.

[Dartwick]

Free said it in response to you, I defined it for you, and you still fail to grasp the flow of the conversation......LMAO.....

You keep making posts personal instead of about the topics and from now on every time you address me Ill respond with vitriol.

************************************************** *******************************
edited by: Papa Bull

I recommend that instead of responding to anyone with vitriol, if you feel you have been personally attacked, please use the report post function. This forum is for people who can discuss issues important to all of us without shooting the messenger or attacking the poster for his beliefs.
************************************************** *******************************