• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's wrong with the GOP.

MrVicchio said:
And now the RNCC needs to get over it's little temper-tantrum and support the people of Delaware by backing the candidate the GOP Voters wanted, not the one they selected.
Click to expand...

Waiiiiiit a minute. When it was Castle's turn in the chair you said he should follow the Republican line regardless of the fact that the voters elected him to be the representative he was being, but when it comes to a candidate you like suddenly the party is the enemy and the voters are the campaigns.

Its like in that other topic "A Kamikaze Republican" you complain that Castle wasn't following the Republican line enough because he was listening to his voters, neither is O'Donnell but suddenly she's the hero because she IS listening to her voters, namely the Republican primary voters.

You really have no universal standard? Just whatever is easy at the time to make an argument.
 
Wiseone said:
Waiiiiiit a minute. When it was Castle's turn in the chair you said he should follow the Republican line regardless of the fact that the voters elected him to be the representative he was being, but when it comes to a candidate you like suddenly the party is the enemy and the voters are the campaigns.
Click to expand...
What are you babbling on about?

Wiseone said:
Its like in that other topic "A Kamikaze Republican" you complain that Castle wasn't following the Republican line enough because he was listening to his voters, neither is O'Donnell but suddenly she's the hero because she IS listening to her voters, namely the Republican primary voters.

You really have no universal standard? Just whatever is easy at the time to make an argument.
Click to expand...

You need to understand that there is a difference between the term Republican Party and Conservative. You can be a Republican and not be much of a Conservative. Castle is a great example, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins....

The issue that seems to have you all in a bother is that you cannot separate the two. The NATIONAL Party backed Castle for the numerical gain, believing that he was the most sure fire way to get a GOP seat in a Blue State. However the STATE GOP Voters elected a real Conservative to Represent them and now the NRCC needs to reverse it's idiotic "we won't back her" BS and support the voters.

It's quite clear, and I've been entirely consistent here. Where the problem lies is in definitions.
 
I'm not talking about the Republican party and who it gives and does not give its support to. Castle could be a communist as far as my argument is concerned, all I see is a double standard when it comes to candidates who mirror their voters. Namely that its wrong to mirror your voters when you aren't conservative enough, but correct to do so when you are conservative enough.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm not talking about the Republican party and who it gives and does not give its support to. Castle could be a communist as far as my argument is concerned, all I see is a double standard when it comes to candidates who mirror their voters. Namely that its wrong to mirror your voters when you aren't conservative enough, but correct to do so when you are conservative enough.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you on about? The GOP Held a Primary to see who their voters wanted to represent them... they chose, and you're... whining about what the voters want?

:blink:
 
MrVicchio said:
However the STATE GOP Voters elected a real Conservative to Represent them and now the NRCC needs to reverse it's idiotic "we won't back her" BS and support the voters.
Click to expand...

All depends on how you define "Conservative". If you mean the huge Government social agenda "conservative" you are correct. If you mean a true Goldwater "fiscal" conservative, you are wrong.
 
TurtleDude said:
It's like the RINOs in Maine-not only do they help the dems break filibusters the dems point to them and claim BIPARTISAN support for Obamasocialism
Click to expand...

Maine is not the only place that has RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We have the same problem in Virginia's 2nd district. Try as they did, the Tea Party failed to derail the nomination of car dealer Scott Rigell, who gave $1,000 to President Obama's campaign in March 2008. Rigell also supported other Democratic candidates and causes. The only true conservative on the ballot in that district is independent candidate Kenny Golden. Yes, independent candidates can win and have been known to. He supports the FairTax, and with 31 years in the Navy, has more experience in national security than his Republican and Democratic opponents combined.
 
disneydude said:
All depends on how you define "Conservative". If you mean the huge Government social agenda "conservative" you are correct. If you mean a true Goldwater "fiscal" conservative, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Wait...

Goldwater would've been for Cap and Trade? IE further government regulation of business?
He wasn't for enforcement of immigration laws and would've supported sanctuary cities, drivers liscenses for illegals, in-state tuition and amnesty for illegals?
He would've voted in favor of bailing out the auto-industry?
His "fiscal" conservative self would've been in favor of the "stimulus" program and TARP I and II?
Would've voted against reforms for earmarks?
Was not a proponent of secret ballets for voting to unionize?
Would've been in favor of doubling the size of the SCHIP program?
Would've agreed that tax payer funds should go to the U.N.?
Was a proponent of raising the minimum wage?
Was in favor of allowing cities to ban firearms?
Was so bad on firearms to get an F from the NRA?
Was against lowering spending and lowering taxes?

Indeed, you're right Disney...Castle sounds like a spitting image of Goldwater :roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait...

Goldwater would've been for Cap and Trade? IE further government regulation of business?
He wasn't for enforcement of immigration laws and would've supported sanctuary cities, drivers liscenses for illegals, in-state tuition and amnesty for illegals?
He would've voted in favor of bailing out the auto-industry?
His "fiscal" conservative self would've been in favor of the "stimulus" program and TARP I and II?
Would've voted against reforms for earmarks?
Was not a proponent of secret ballets for voting to unionize?
Would've been in favor of doubling the size of the SCHIP program?
Would've agreed that tax payer funds should go to the U.N.?
Was a proponent of raising the minimum wage?
Was in favor of allowing cities to ban firearms?
Was so bad on firearms to get an F from the NRA?
Was against lowering spending and lowering taxes?

Indeed, you're right Disney...Castle sounds like a spitting image of Goldwater :roll:
Click to expand...

On WHAT do you base this speculation?

If Goldwater were running the GOP today, he'd be doing some serious ass-kicking to those who want to impose a Huge Government social agenda.
I've always loved this about Goldwater: "There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

The GOP has to decide what it wants its party to be and who is going to control it. Are they going to be the party of "conservatism"? Or are they going to be the party of so-called "Social Conservatives" which is nothing more than Big Government pushing their social agenda. Goldwater was smart enough to see the seeds of this movement destroying the GOP decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, while I understand a Deleware Republican candidate will never be as conservative as a Alaskan one, I'm glad Castle lost. I don't trust the GOP establishment one bit, and seeing their candidates lose, even if it means a loss in the general election, is fine by me. The GOP is a party that lost all sense of idealogy or principles and became consumed with simply maintaining power. Some idealogical purges are necessary to right the ship, then we can talk about running moderate, compromise candidates in blue territory.
 
disneydude said:
500 million wouldn't be enough for this nutjob. Have you seen the videos that they have on her....she is burnt toast.
Click to expand...

dd, can you name one Tea Party backed candidate you DON'T think is a nutjob?
 
MrVicchio said:
dd, can you name one Tea Party backed candidate you DON'T think is a nutjob?
Click to expand...

To be honest...I don't know most of them. However, the three that I know are all nutjobs....Angle, Fiorina and O'Donnell. I'm sure that there are some decent true fiscal conservative candidates mixed in amongst the nuts though.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people that espouse the principles that the Tea Party claims to stand for. I think that responsible fiscal conservatism is a good thing, and for those candidates that focus on that issue, I could respect. The problem I find with, at least those tea party candidates that I am exposed to, those issues really take a backseat to a push for whacko right-wing social agenda "conservatism". I actually hope that there are candidates out there that can have one...but reject the other.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
On WHAT do you base this speculation?
Click to expand...

Everything I've read about Barry Goldwater.

Are you saying that Barry Goldwater would be for government bail outs, for increased government regulation of businesses, for allowing cities to ban guns, for trillion dollar government "Stimulus" programs, for denying people secret ballots when voting for Unions, for increased in government welfare programs, against lowering spending, against lowering taxes?

Notice Disney, NONE of those things are "social" conservative stuff involving god or the religious right. Also notice Disney, all of those things were voted for by Castle during his time in the congress. You quoting a bunch of religious right hating by Goldwater doesn't invalidate my point since I've not said a single thing about the religious right. You've tried to indicate this man was a FISCAL Goldwater conservative. I think you don't know the difference between a horses ass and a Goldwater conservative if that's what you believe.
 
Zyphlin said:
Everything I've read about Barry Goldwater.

Are you saying that Barry Goldwater would be for government bail outs, for increased government regulation of businesses, for allowing cities to ban guns, for trillion dollar government "Stimulus" programs, for denying people secret ballots when voting for Unions, for increased in government welfare programs, against lowering spending, against lowering taxes?

Notice Disney, NONE of those things are "social" conservative stuff involving god or the religious right. Also notice Disney, all of those things were voted for by Castle during his time in the congress. You quoting a bunch of religious right hating by Goldwater doesn't invalidate my point since I've not said a single thing about the religious right. You've tried to indicate this man was a FISCAL Goldwater conservative. I think you don't know the difference between a horses ass and a Goldwater conservative if that's what you believe.
Click to expand...

When did I say that "This man was a Fiscal Goldwater Conservative"..... I never said anything of the sort. What I do know and respect about Barry Goldwater was that he was a TRUE conservative....not one of these Pro HUGE government so-called "Conservatives" of today.
 
disneydude said:
When did I say that "This man was a Fiscal Goldwater Conservative"..... I never said anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're absolutely correct. You weren't speaking about Castle, you were speaking about the actual nominee and how Mr V was wrong to be backing them and calling her a "real conservative". You say this because the nominee doesn't stand for Goldwater's social views.

However, where's your condemnation for the person who lost, who doesn't stand for Goldwaters Fiscal or Governmental views? Or is the LIBERAL part of goldwater the only part you care about while you fake your support for his fiscal and governmental views?

Are you suggesting that Goldwaters fiscal and governmental views are less important than his social views? It seems you must be making that argument if you're upset that someone isn't a "real" conservative for not following his social views and beat out someone who didn't support his fiscal side
 
disneydude said:
What I do know and respect about Barry Goldwater was that he was a TRUE conservative....not one of these Pro HUGE government so-called "Conservatives" of today.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you should support O'Donnell's nomination seeing how Castle was a "Pro HUGE government so called 'conservative' of today". Since he was in favor of HUGE government regulation on business, HUGE government involvement in buying out private companies, HUGE government involvement in bailing out banks, HUGE government involvement in spending, HUGE government involvement in banning and restricting guns, HUGE government involvement in shielding people from the laws of this country, HUGE government involvement of social services.

I mean, since you seem to hate those "so called 'conservatives'" that are "Pro HUGE government" you must have detested Castle as well...being such a lover of Goldwater.

Or is it more likely the obvious, that your bull**** love for Goldwater is simply that and the only reason you like him is the same as many liberals like some libertarians better than republicans, because he was more liberal regarding social issues. But you know saying that plainly will show the admiration for the hollow thing it is so you dress it up in him being against "HUGE government" and being "fiscally responsible", two things you have no issue with people on your side of the aisle doing routinely so why should we believe you actually admire Goldwater for those things.
 
Wiseone said:
EVERYONE has to, thats what happens when you dont have a single party state! Dems and Reps need to learn to compromise with each other so perhaps instead of bills being either entirely "I love it" or "I hate it" for everyone, people can find more room to say "well its ok, not perfect, but I can live with it."

Its better for society since we're all Americans.
Click to expand...
Horse****. People need a clear partisan choice. Compromise means you are selling out to the enemy (Liberals).
 
MrVicchio said:
What I find depressing is that the "Tea Party" backed Candidates are all being portrayed as kooks, loons and idiots, and so many are buying the crap. The media learned with Palin how to destroy Conservative Candidates. Shame on you Dav.
Click to expand...

The communists used to say that if they gave us enough rope we would hang ourselves.

With the Tea Party it should be give them a microphone and they will hang themselves.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah, so you should support O'Donnell's nomination seeing how Castle was a "Pro HUGE government so called 'conservative' of today". Since he was in favor of HUGE government regulation on business, HUGE government involvement in buying out private companies, HUGE government involvement in bailing out banks, HUGE government involvement in spending, HUGE government involvement in banning and restricting guns, HUGE government involvement in shielding people from the laws of this country, HUGE government involvement of social services.

I mean, since you seem to hate those "so called 'conservatives'" that are "Pro HUGE government" you must have detested Castle as well...being such a lover of Goldwater.

Or is it more likely the obvious, that your bull**** love for Goldwater is simply that and the only reason you like him is the same as many liberals like some libertarians better than republicans, because he was more liberal regarding social issues. But you know saying that plainly will show the admiration for the hollow thing it is so you dress it up in him being against "HUGE government" and being "fiscally responsible", two things you have no issue with people on your side of the aisle doing routinely so why should we believe you actually admire Goldwater for those things.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree with Zyph. Disney's alleged admiration for Goldwater has always struck me as disengenuos since the things he claims to admire in Goldwater (small government and fiscal conservatism) are things he believes the exact opposite in. With the possible exception of Romney (who is hardly a classic Goldwater conservative) I don't think I've ever seen Disney say anything kind about any GOP or conservative figure. I'd bet dollars to dounuts that if Goldwater was alive and politically active today, Disney would be singing a different tune and attacking Goldwater's "extreme" views on government.
 
Psychoclown said:
Gotta agree with Zyph. Disney's alleged admiration for Goldwater has always struck me as disengenuos since the things he claims to admire in Goldwater (small government and fiscal conservatism) are things he believes the exact opposite in. With the possible exception of Romney (who is hardly a classic Goldwater conservative) I don't think I've ever seen Disney say anything kind about any GOP or conservative figure. I'd bet dollars to dounuts that if Goldwater was alive and politically active today, Disney would be singing a different tune and attacking Goldwater's "extreme" views on government.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't been following along for the last several years then. I have also been a fan of Romney and if you go back you can see that I have posted many favorable things about Romney on the board, especially during the last Presidential election.
The only problem that I have with Romney is that during the last election, he started to shift his positions on social issues in order to appeal to the GOP base. If Romney went back to his Mass. Governor person and assured voters that he would not push the right-wings social agenda, I could very well see myself voting for him. The man is intelligent and has a history of being able to turn around failures. If the economy continues to sputter, I could easily vote for him in 2012...but again, only if he indicates that he would not push a right-wing social agenda.

As for Goldwater and fiscal conservatives, I may not always agree with them, however, I respect them. My personal politics are extremely liberal on the social side, but not as much on the fiscal side. I would still say that I am a fiscal liberal, however, I believe that reform is absolutely necessary to stop abuses in welfare, both individual and corporate.
 
Which is exactly what I was saiyng

Reality is that Disney props up Goldwater and old Romney as "conservatives I liked" because they were socially liberal and thus gave Disney a way to say it without feeling dirty

Presentation is that Disney continually tries to act like the reason he liked them is their fiscal policies, so as not to make it obvious that all he's doing is going "I like Republicans when they're liberal on issues".

Romeny is a perfect example of what I was saying. He liked to trumpet Romney's fiscal responsability, but the moment his social issues didn't match up Disney's roasted him. Yet we're supposed to think he cares so much for Goldwater because he was fiscally responsible?

Same thing here, Disney lamnets the loss of Castle to the the "Huge Pro-Government Social Conservative" that was so unlike Goldwater while not pointing out that Castle as a Huge Pro-Govenrment Fiscal Liberal unlike Goldwater
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is exactly what I was saiyng

Reality is that Disney props up Goldwater and old Romney as "conservatives I liked" because they were socially liberal and thus gave Disney a way to say it without feeling dirty

Presentation is that Disney continually tries to act like the reason he liked them is their fiscal policies, so as not to make it obvious that all he's doing is going "I like Republicans when they're liberal on issues".

Romeny is a perfect example of what I was saying. He liked to trumpet Romney's fiscal responsability, but the moment his social issues didn't match up Disney's roasted him. Yet we're supposed to think he cares so much for Goldwater because he was fiscally responsible?

Same thing here, Disney lamnets the loss of Castle to the the "Huge Pro-Government Social Conservative" that was so unlike Goldwater while not pointing out that Castle as a Huge Pro-Govenrment Fiscal Liberal unlike Goldwater
Click to expand...

Once again Zyph..you are completely wrong. I have never tried to act like I like Romney or Goldwater because of their fiscal policies. I have been very honest that I actually disagree with a lot of their fiscal policies. If you were being honest, you would say exactly what I have said. I could respect their fiscal policies, even if I did not agree with them 100%, because they were not the total right-wing nutjobs on social issues. I would be willing to vote for someone like Romney or Goldwater under the right circumstances, if they don't intend to push the right-wings social agenda. 2012 could be one of those circumstances. I respect Romney's track record on economic issues. If the economy does not improve by 2012, I would be willing to bite the bullet and vote for someone that I don't always agree with on fiscal issues, to give them a chance to get this economy back on its feet. However, if they indicate that they would also seek to advance the right-wings big government social agenda, then I would have to think twice about supporting them, especially since the balance of the Supreme Court is very tight at this point, the wrong justices on the court could effect changes that would effect me for the rest of my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom