What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there are some that are conservative. I think they are in the minority and for the most part are not heard from. The neo-cons are NOT conservative and the Tea Party is a whole new level of crazy...

There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism Rover, the problem is the social conservatives are the voice of the party.

A fair point Handy, but how long do we wait for the fiscal-conservative-but-sane, not Talibanesque on social policy conservatives to assert themselves before we declare them extinct?

A lot of righties I talk to long for the day of Reagan-Bush Sr, which is fine. What I always reply though is that these people are either 90 years old or long gone. In short, they aren't going to re-assert themselves anytime soon. What's taken their place is an embracement of hate, a martyr complex, and an indulgence of black helicopter conspiracy theories. Reagan, Jack Kemp, etc were all described as "optimistic conservatives". Can anybody name me one of those today?
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

What if the Catholic Church is right and society is wrong? Just because everyone is jumping off the cliff (so to speak) does not make it right. And Pope Francis has not changed one iota of Catholic doctrine, nor is there any indication that he will.

Bingo. The answer is that simple. If you've got a problem with the Church or their doctrine, don't become a member. There are plenty of other religions that don't have the strict social doctrine Catholics do. They are a private entity and under no obligation to "change with the times". So either prepare to ask forgiveness or find a new path.

How can you say right or wrong? Like politics it's all your opinion. I compared church to GOP as I see similarities in their struggles of late and how both seem to be slipping in terms of identifying with as many people as they used to.
And I am aware Francis hasn't changed doctrine - but he's bringing the topics up which is light years apart from Benedict.

What does bringing them up accomplish? What he's preaching is in line with doctrine. Don't expect the Catholic Church to be performing gay marriages any time soon if ever.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Can anybody name me one of those today?
I can't, must be a few but they don't get headlines like the nut jobs do. Jon Huntsman? would be the only guy I can think of that would get me to vote for a repub at this time.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

A lot of righties I talk to long for the day of Reagan-Bush Sr, which is fine. What I always reply though is that these people are either 90 years old or long gone. In short, they aren't going to re-assert themselves anytime soon. What's taken their place is an embracement of hate, a martyr complex, and an indulgence of black helicopter conspiracy theories. Reagan, Jack Kemp, etc were all described as "optimistic conservatives". Can anybody name me one of those today?

Embracement of hate? You've got to be kidding me. No one hates more than the left. If you don't see things the left's way, prepare to be destroyed. Just look at how you refer to those on the right with name calling and insults.
 
I can't, must be a few but they don't get headlines like the nut jobs do. Jon Huntsman? would be the only guy I can think of that would get me to vote for a repub at this time.


Huntsman seems like a good guy. The party really ought to find a way to get him a more prominent role (RNC chairman? Senate if Orrin Hatch ever gives up the ghost?).
 
Embracement of hate? You've got to be kidding me. No one hates more than the left. If you don't see things the left's way, prepare to be destroyed. Just look at how you refer to those on the right with name calling and insults.

Tiggsy, you can't take an unreasonable position and then not expect to get blasted for it. We aren't in elementary school anymore. If you went into your job (assuming you have one) and started spouting crackpot ideas while preventing everybody else from getting their work done, you would be insulted on a regular basis up until you were fired. Its too bad if people who would rather bring the country to the brink of financial calamity to burnish their right wing credentials get made fun of. There's no Constitutional right to be an idiot, nor a law saying the rest of us have to put up with idiots. Ted Cruz, despite his education, is a dangerous idiot and should be referred to as such. Your Karl Rovian attemps to blame others for things that conservatives do themselves has long ago been exposed, or we'd be talking about President Romney right now.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Tiggsy, you can't take an unreasonable position and then not expect to get blasted for it. We aren't in elementary school anymore. If you went into your job (assuming you have one) and started spouting crackpot ideas while preventing everybody else from getting their work done, you would be insulted on a regular basis up until you were fired. Its too bad if people who would rather bring the country to the brink of financial calamity to burnish their right wing credentials get made fun of. There's no Constitutional right to be an idiot, nor a law saying the rest of us have to put up with idiots. Ted Cruz, despite his education, is a dangerous idiot and should be referred to as such. Your Karl Rovian attemps to blame others for things that conservatives do themselves has long ago been exposed, or we'd be talking about President Romney right now.

And now I'm the insult target. Guess I was expecting that. And it's also why I don't normally frequent these threads. Thank you for reminding me that I don't belong here because it's not worth it. Time to head back to the D1 board and stay there where the insults thrown around aren't so vindictive or personal in nature.
Out.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

If you don't see things the left's way, prepare to be destroyed.

What acts of destruction are you referring to, Tiggsy, and who are you including in "the left?" Certainly everyone has their own form of obstinacy and intolerance, but I have never heard liberals or "the left" described as people who destroy of those who take a different view. In fact they seem to be often characterized as pie-in-the-sky dreamers who refuse to face the hard facts of life and whose policies are doomed to fail for that reason. If you are referring to the latest refusal by the administration to bow to the nuclear strategies of the Tea Party, I understand your thinking but would beg to disagree.

You friggin' arse-licking idiot
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

What acts of destruction are you referring to, Tiggsy, and who are you including in "the left?" Certainly everyone has their own form of obstinacy and intolerance, but I have never heard liberals or "the left" described as people who destroy of those who take a different view. In fact they seem to be often characterized as pie-in-the-sky dreamers who refuse to face the hard facts of life and whose policies are doomed to fail for that reason. If you are referring to the latest refusal by the administration to bow to the nuclear strategies of the Tea Party, I understand your thinking but would beg to disagree.

No conservatives or even TPers are trying to shut down Maddow, "Tingles" or "Skillets." But the left, for years, has been trying to shut Limbaugh up (via Section 315 and other avenues). "Dreamers" (shades of high school civics) perhaps. Willing to tolerate disagreement from others? Not so much. Like Buckley used to say: Liberals say they support your right to disagree. They're just always surprised when anybody does.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Embracement of hate? You've got to be kidding me. No one hates more than the left. If you don't see things the left's way, prepare to be destroyed. Just look at how you refer to those on the right with name calling and insults.

To disagree with the left means you "hate" or are "racist." Because in their estimation, those can be the only explanations for taking positions they don't approve of. Politically, there's very little difference between accusations of "racism" today and allegations that liberals 50 years ago were "commies." These are argument stoppers. Designed to shut up opponents, put them on the defensive and change the subject. How can you prove a negative? That you're not a racist or a commie lover?

Folks who throw around accusations of racism generally ignore the irony that the party they tend to support was the home of virulent racists for decades. All of those southern, Jim Crow governors were Democrats. And the Democrats nominated a couple of Jim Crow types as Vice President in '52 and '56. Sure, it was a long time ago, but them's the facts. The great New Deal coalition of big city northern blacks and southern whites was counter intuitive, but worked for decades. When LBJ couldn't get the Civil Rights Act of '64 through the senate because of southern Democratic opposition, he turned to minority leader Ev Dirksen of Illinois to get the bill passed.

To your point of "destruction of opponents," just look at the presidential language leading up to and during the shutdown. "Terrorists," "extremists," etc. Day after day. Aided and abetted, as usual, by the MSM. Over the last 5 years there has been a tsunami of "journalists," presumably unbiased, who have gone to work for the administration. Polls over the years have repeatedly shown that elite media reporters tend to be liberal. There's nothing wrong with that in the abstract. There is when collectively that liberalism colors their "reporting," while they continue to deny the biases exist. Just ask Daniel Schorr.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

What if the Catholic Church is right and society is wrong? Just because everyone is jumping off the cliff (so to speak) does not make it right. And Pope Francis has not changed one iota of Catholic doctrine, nor is there any indication that he will.

Are you suggesting the sun revolves around the earth?

Just look at how you refer to those on the right with name calling and insults.

Where as no one on the right around here calls name or insults others. Please.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

To disagree with the left means you "hate" or are "racist." Because in their estimation, those can be the only explanations for taking positions they don't approve of. Politically, there's very little difference between accusations of "racism" today and allegations that liberals 50 years ago were "commies." These are argument stoppers. Designed to shut up opponents, put them on the defensive and change the subject. How can you prove a negative? That you're not a racist or a commie lover?

Folks who throw around accusations of racism generally ignore the irony that the party they tend to support was the home of virulent racists for decades. All of those southern, Jim Crow governors were Democrats. And the Democrats nominated a couple of Jim Crow types as Vice President in '52 and '56. Sure, it was a long time ago, but them's the facts. The great New Deal coalition of big city northern blacks and southern whites was counter intuitive, but worked for decades. When LBJ couldn't get the Civil Rights Act of '64 through the senate because of southern Democratic opposition, he turned to minority leader Ev Dirksen of Illinois to get the bill passed.

To your point of "destruction of opponents," just look at the presidential language leading up to and during the shutdown. "Terrorists," "extremists," etc. Day after day. Aided and abetted, as usual, by the MSM. Over the last 5 years there has been a tsunami of "journalists," presumably unbiased, who have gone to work for the administration. Polls over the years have repeatedly shown that elite media reporters tend to be liberal. There's nothing wrong with that in the abstract. There is when collectively that liberalism colors their "reporting," while they continue to deny the biases exist. Just ask Daniel Schorr.

It's hard to tell, sometimes, where the centerline is, though the effect of being labeled as right or left of it has become more polarizing. It seems some Tpers are now portraying McConnell as a liberal sellout. I realize that is mostly a pressure tactic, but has the old distinction between fiscal and social conservatives become useless?

Parise, sounding like Osorojo.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Neither does the Catholic Church.

They just decided that Galileo might have been right. Kudos.

So you are saying using condoms would make no difference in the spread of AIDS?
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

It's hard to tell, sometimes, where the centerline is, though the effect of being labeled as right or left of it has become more polarizing. It seems some Tpers are now portraying McConnell as a liberal sellout. I realize that is mostly a pressure tactic, but has the old distinction between fiscal and social conservatives become useless?

Parise, sounding like Osorojo.

Personally, I'm not an ideologue. I am however, a firm believer in the Buckley Principle: nominate the most conservative guy (or gal) who can win. Going down with flags flying has no appeal to me. Sadly, the extremes of both parties don't feel that way. Particularly in the House. Since so few of 'em are in competitive races they tend to hew to the outer edges of their parties. Natually, the port siders will deny that, asserting that it's only the conservatives who are fringy. So when New Yorkers elect a Sandanista mayor, what then?

You pick any controversial issue facing Americans and generally the most extreme voices and positions are the ones we hear. Most of us are in the middle somewhere. And most of us don't donate to pressure groups. Or march. H*ll, most of us don't even vote!

Although I revered Barry Goldwater as a great conservative and great man, he represented a break from traditional Republicanism. And New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller represented the "go along to get along" Republicans. The slogan was "A choice, not an echo." The MSM treated this man as if he were some sort of fascist. H*ll, Daniel Schorr even described Goldwater as visiting "Hitler's old stomping grounds" in Bavaria.

So now we have the Tea Party, another manifestation of "movement" conservatives. And there's nothing new about what they stand for or the Democrats' (or the MSM's) response to them. To my knowledge, TP types haven't advocated any violence nor engaged in any. The only violence at a TP event came when SEIU thugs beat the crap out of a black guy. Yet the shrieking in the media about the TP is deafening. They aren't my cup of tea, primarily because they've engineering the nomination of candidates who blew winnable races. But they're essentially harmless and represent nothing startlingly new. Yes, occasionally some TP type will say something manifestly stupid, which results in a torrent of smears by the left. "Why, that's extreme, and has no place in American political discourse" Blah, blah, blah. Yet these same people ignored, or have forgotten, or participated in demonstrations calling for George W. Bush's execution, hanging, beheading etc.

Certainly everybody is in the business of raising money and awareness, so the "excesses" of the Obama administration help the TP bottom line. And the "excesses" of the TP help bring in the money for the other side. This is as American as apple pie. Nothing new here. And any claims to the contrary are just spin.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Time to head back to the D1 board and stay there where the insults thrown around aren't so vindictive or personal in nature.


Well, they were meant to be. :p


You can't take insults in these political threads personally. As far as I can see, no one else does.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

You can't take insults in these political threads personally. As far as I can see, no one else does.

The libs don't, probably because they have the numbers to just slap each other on the back. As for Pio and the Flagster, I'm not so sure. Flag in particular, has been known to scream "fascist" and put someone on ignore at first impression.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Huntsman seems like a good guy. The party really ought to find a way to get him a more prominent role (RNC chairman? Senate if Orrin Hatch ever gives up the ghost?).

that RINO????

Next thing you'll be suggesting that they nominate Olympia Snowe for president
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Well, they were meant to be. :p


You can't take insults in these political threads personally. As far as I can see, no one else does.

I don't but especially because no one knows me. It's not the same and just isn't fun, so I'm out. That's why I don't hang out here too much.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

The libs don't, probably because they have the numbers to just slap each other on the back. As for Pio and the Flagster, I'm not so sure. Flag in particular, has been known to scream "fascist" and put someone on ignore at first impression.

Naturally. In addition to being a racist and consumed with hate, I also have no freakin' sense of humor! Quelle surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top