The question the GOP needs to ask the electorate in 2012

myp · Sep 1, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Thats like taking one guy who robbed a store for $20 and another guy who stole $600 million in jewelry, and lumping them both into the same catagory.

Sure, the GOP made some goofs, but they pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by the Left.

That is simply not true. They both made HUGE goofs. What happened wouldn't have happened had it not been for the actions of both parties and while the Democrats were big on the GSEs, the Republicans were all too fine with low rates, and the relevant deregulation which they helped push through.

I don't believe in these stupid party lines- they have turned real problems into mockeries of "my team is better than yours". It is nonsense and usually leads to intellectual dishonesty. But if you really want to play that game remember that Alan Greenspan is a registered Republican.

Patrick · Sep 1, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Thats like taking one guy who robbed a store for $20 and another guy who stole $600 million in jewelry, and lumping them both into the same catagory.

Sure, the GOP made some goofs, but they pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by the Left.

Exactly. He's got this bipartisan, or nonpartisan, or independent thing which, against all evidence, makes a perfect equation of republicans and leftwingers.

Patrick · Sep 1, 2011

myp said:
That is simply not true. They both made HUGE goofs. What happened wouldn't have happened had it not been for the actions of both parties and while the Democrats were big on the GSEs, the Republicans were all too fine with low rates, and the relevant deregulation which they helped push through.

I don't believe in these stupid party lines- they have turned real problems into mockeries of "my team is better than yours". It is nonsense and usually leads to intellectual dishonesty. But if you really want to play that game remember that Alan Greenspan is a registered Republican.

The republicans had no control over rates, the Fed, an independent regulatory agency, did. By contrast, the leftwing role in warping the GSEs into a tool of destruction is beyond question. Your attempted equivalence falls flat on its face.

myp · Sep 1, 2011

Even through your irrational party-line analysis, your argument fails. Because Alan Greenspan was still a Republican and still acted under what was generally accepted as monetary policy by the GOP. The GOP not once publicly criticized him (a few select members might have but the vast majority did not). Not only that, but he was praised for his brilliance and work. The GOP also played a big role in getting Glass-Steagall through. They also stood by as the GSEs got bigger despite have Congressional and Presidential control periodically over the past couple decades. But Patrick, as we agreed to before, I am done with you on this topic because it is clear you love your stupid little elephant emblem way too much and way more than truth, intellectual honesty, or people. I am willing to have an exchange with Catholic Crusader though.

Patrick · Sep 1, 2011

myp said:
Even through your irrational party-line analysis, your argument fails. Because Alan Greenspan was still a Republican and still acted under what was generally accepted as monetary policy by the GOP.

Conservatives would laugh till they puked at THAT one.

Greenspan is and always has been a RINO - he worked for the two worst RINO presidents, Ford and Nixon. He's been married to the absolute WORST leftwinger in the lib media, Andrea Mitchell. His policies were certainly NEVER endorsed by REAL republicans, and have in fact been criticized by them for DECADES.

The GOP also played a big role in getting Glass-Steagall through.

I'm guessing what you meant Sparky is the REPEAL of part of Glass-Steagall, which in fact had nothing to do with the financial near-collapse.

But Patrick, as we agreed to before, I am done with you on this topic because it is clear you love your stupid little elephant emblem way too much .

Besides thereby revealing yourself as an intellectual coward, your assertion shows you're practically deaf to what I've been saying - the Republican Party can rot and go to hell for all I care, it has been controlled by the RINO establishment for 23 years and complicit by inaction with the leftwing.

Hint for you: Listen to something other than your own blather, you just might get a clue ocassionally.

myp · Sep 1, 2011

Yes I meant GLB. As for RINOs- you seem to think everyone or most everyone is a RINO. If that is the case, then the party is made of RINOs so instead of sticking with the party why don't you just admit it has evolved to something else, something that is more in line with what the RINOs do by your definition. If the vast majority of the party is no longer what you define as Republican, then maybe you need to realize that the definition of Republican has changed.

As for intellectual honesty and listening to logical points- you are the one that has a problem with that. And it is not just me that has said it- from what I've seen you have a problem with anyone that disagrees with you and for the most part everyone ends up stopping the conversation when they realize YOU do not listen or care for logic, but just like the "sound" of your own voice rambling your nonsense. How many people have called you a troll on this board for example? And I doubt very much it hasn't happened to you elsewhere too.

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." -Harvey Dent (Dark Knight)

Boy you try hard to make yourself stay the hero.

Patrick · Sep 1, 2011

myp said:
Yes I meant GLB. As for RINOs- you seem to think everyone or most everyone is a RINO.

No, I think people who are RINOS, are RINOs.

If that is the case, then the party is made of RINOs so instead of sticking with the party why don't you just admit it has evolved to something else, something that is more in line with what the RINOs do by your definition. If the vast majority of the party is no longer what you define as Republican, then maybe you need to realize that the definition of Republican has changed.

If you want to push your knowledge of the republican party beyond its current zero level, you should do some (what else) reading. Control of the party has always bounced back and forth between conservatives and generally eastern establishment types over the decades, whose goal is usually limited to serving the interests of big business, while caving into the leftwing on nearly every other issue. Currently, it is the Tea Party congressional freshmen who are trying to snatch the party back from the fake republicans, and they've had some success, eg with the defeat of some congressional RINOs. Also, who would dare to claim that the disastrous national debt would ever have become a real issue except for those same conservatives demanding that it be dealt with?

As for intellectual honesty and listening to logical points- you are the one that has a problem with that.

Pot calling the kettle black - you jump on inconsequential asides of a post, where you think you can make some of "big point", and ignore the rest.

myp · Sep 1, 2011

"Republican" is not a dictionary definition term. It isn't even a word. It is a name, a moniker that comes with being part of an open organization. That being said, the members can change the very meaning of the organization by doing what they do.

By your hard-lined definition, most Republicans are RINOs and most Democrats are DINOs. Even the official party platforms over past years have been "in name only" under this absurd naming-scheme. It is much easier and equally accurate to say the old GOP or the old Dems are gone and the parties have changed.

Patrick · Sep 1, 2011

myp said:
"Republican" is not a dictionary definition term. It isn't even a word. It is a name, a moniker that comes with being part of an open organization. That being said, the members can change the very meaning of the organization by doing what they do.

Yesssss, but leftwingers have forever used it as an equivocation to avoid real debate with conservatives. Eg when conservatives point to the $7 trillion increase in national debt under obama, plus his $1 trillion wasted porkulus, they'll point to Bush 2 and say "Yeah but look what you guys did!" The problem is, Bush (both Bushes, and Ford, and Nixon) isn't us guys, they're RINOS who have far more in common with the democrat party.

By your hard-lined definition, most Republicans are RINOs and most Democrats are DINOs.

No, nothing equivalent to the RINOs has ever happened to the democrats. The closest they've come is the "moderate" democrats JFK and Harry truman, now about 50 years gone.

David · Sep 1, 2011

RINO this, RINO that but the 1st Repub president was a socialist.

As myp says, it's not an issue of RINOs, it's an issue of the platform changing.

CatholicCrusader · Sep 2, 2011

myp said:
That is simply not true. They both made HUGE goofs. What happened wouldn't have happened had it not been for the actions of both parties and while the Democrats were big on the GSEs, the Republicans were all too fine with low rates, and the relevant deregulation which they helped push through..

I disagree. The GOP is light years better than the Dems.

myp said:
I don't believe in these stupid party lines- they have turned real problems into mockeries of "my team is better than yours". It is nonsense and usually leads to intellectual dishonesty. But if you really want to play that game remember that Alan Greenspan is a registered Republican.

The two parties system was there when America rose to be the most powerful nation in human history. Nobody was complaining about two parties back then.

The system is not the problem: The people running it are.

myp · Sep 2, 2011

CatholicCrusader, the system has still changed. You have a monstrousity in the Fed which arguably is a fourth branch in government, you have a different social contract, a different Constitution, and different laws. The system is the problem and the people running it act the way they do because of the system which incentivizes selling out to special interests and allows them to do so completely legally.

As for GOP vs. Dem they are both bad enough- I don't like either. And even if one is better, it doesn't change the standing facts of their involvement in allowing and fueling the housing market to let it get the way it did.

Patrick · Sep 2, 2011

myp said:
As for GOP vs. Dem they are both bad enough- I don't like either. And even if one is better, it doesn't change the standing facts of their involvement in allowing and fueling the housing market to let it get the way it did.

Again, you're trying to make an equivalence between (analogously) a guy who killed three people while robbing a bank, and a guy who saw it but didn't call the police.

myp · Sep 2, 2011

Patrick said:
Again, you're trying ti make an equivalence between (analogously) a guy who killed three people while robbing a bank, and a guy who saw it but didn't call the police.

Except that analogy doesn't hold since both sides played a large role. Most people agree with me on that as do the facts.

Patrick · Sep 2, 2011

myp said:
Except that analogy doesn't hold since both sides played a large role. Most people agree with me on that as do the facts.

No they don't - I've clobbered you COMPLETELY on the facts, but you just robotically keep repeating that you won. Kinda sad, actually.

myp · Sep 2, 2011

Patrick said:
No they don't - I've clobbered you COMPLETELY on the facts, but you just robotically keep repeating that you won. Kinda sad, actually.

See, that is your problem. You think there is a winner in these discussions. There isn't. Grow up, it's not a game- it's just an exchange of ideas.

As for people where the majority would probably agree with me: most economists, the Austrian school, Republicans like Ron Paul, libertarians, on and on...

Patrick · Sep 2, 2011

myp said:
See, that is your problem. You think there is a winner in these discussions. There isn't. Grow up, it's not a game- it's just an exchange of ideas.

As for people where the majority would probably agree with me: most economists, the Austrian school, Republicans like Ron Paul, libertarians, on and on...

There you go again - your brain synapses shorting out over the use of metaphors.

myp · Sep 2, 2011

Patrick said:
There you go again - your brain synapses shorting out over the use of metaphors.

What metaphor?

CatholicCrusader · Sep 3, 2011

myp said:
........As for GOP vs. Dem they are both bad enough.........

That is ridiculous. To compare the GOP, which stands for traditional family, traditional values, smaller government and a stong defense, to the Dems who stand for massive government and all manner of vile social perversities, is just not even realistic.

myp · Sep 3, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
That is ridiculous. To compare the GOP, which stands for traditional family, traditional values, smaller government and a stong defense, to the Dems who stand for massive government and all manner of vile social perversities, is just not even realistic.

It is no longer about the ideological differences for the most part. Everyone sells out. Until you realize that you keep playing into their little game that enriches them and their rich friends and screws the poor and the middle class.

The question the GOP needs to ask the electorate in 2012

Similar threads