GOP minus RP is as conservative as Democratic republic of Korea or Congo is Democrati

GOP Ron Paul aside, are fraud, traitors:

They are as conservative as Democratic republic of Korea or Congo is Democratic. - The establishment media calls them that, not reality.

Anyone can prove other wise? if not, then just discuss, to keep this thread above the toilet paper hanging and the gay rights issues threads

 

yeah the other republicans are republicrats,just liek their buddy obama,only here to serve the establishment.paul of course is a RINO.

 

I actually agree.........

 

Just as I thought. no one can prove me wrong. thank you 2 guys for bumping this. I wonder if someone will show up eventually to claim other wise... they would probably rather talk about which is the correct way to put on a roll of toilet paper, or the gay rights or some other nonsense.

 

Um...

What is a "Conservative" to you?

 

For me, and I know you were not asking me but its to stop progressive change, to preserve the fundamental ideas that make made this country great.

Constitutionally Limited Government

Free Market

Strong National defense

To be Fiscal Responsible

Those are the core Conservative values I hold to our government

The Core conservative values I hold to my family and I are-

I believe in pro-life

Traditional family values

Marriage between man and women

though constitutional and relevant to our government I also hold my right to bear arms very serious. It is a means of protection and survival.

Strong work ethic...earn your keep and not take from others.


How I live my life and how I live with those around me should be left to us to decide and not Washington.

 

I've already blown this pathetic theory out of the water multiple times. How about manning up with some specific examples of how liberals and the gop are exactly alike. Back up your lies for once.

 

I like that list.

How exactly does the OP propose that the various GOP candidates violate it with their platforms?

 

Against socialist at home or against oilsters in the middle east? where are your national borders? while tens of millions of American families were being thrown out of their homes by the banks which got bailed out by your socialist conservative government of Bush, all the gun totting patriots sat around, listening to their Rush Bimbi types about how these people "had no business buying homes in the first place"... care to explain the hypocrisy and the lameness?

 

All the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul have a public record of either supporting or outright voting for laws that is a direct affront to those core principles.
I would say almost all Americans agree that our government is corrupt. Yet most are too afraid to fix it because of their dependency on a large government.

 

They may dissagree on how to put on a roll of toilet paper, or about gay rights issues, but the rest, meaningful stuff:
1. They both take money from special interest lobbyists
2. They both become popular due to establishment media publicity rather then by being any different from the pack
3. And RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare look almost identical too:
http://youtu.be/qj3QMoHkjxY

 

Let me build on this pathetic list if I may:
[sarcasm]
Constitutionally Limited Government limited by sky as the national borders being in the middle east

Free Market with china being more free to encourage more freedom

Strong National defense of the middle east while tens of American families were losing homes at home in America to the banks bailed out by Bush, the defender

To be Fiscal Responsible like Bush was in his no nation building mission

I believe in pro-life after the meeting with lord jesus christ

Traditional family values by sending men to defend the national borders of middle east for 10 years - so that wifes can realise how much they miss them.

Marriage between man and women and importance that the roll of toilet paper be put on the right way. (not to stir controversy or anything)
[/sarcasm]

 

Examples, please.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I greatly despise weak arguments - and the OP is noted for those.

 

You're going to need to attempt English. There is nothing pathetic about that list...that is, until you screwed with it.

 

I would like to point out that a "conservative" view of a strong national defense is highly debatable. For the first 1/2 of US history, America was a non-interventionist nation, which had successfully led to strong national security compared to the number of conflicts/dead Americans found in the 2nd 1/2 of US history (the 19th and 20th centuries). Strength in national defense is unfortunately a watered down term only in reference to size of military. If you accept this as the sole meaning of strong national defense, then it would be "liberal" to claim a "strong national defense" since the 1st 1/2 of US history relied on "non-interventionism" and not large armies.

Large armies are a relatively new phenomenon in US history, ever since WWII when the military industrial complex was formed. Ever since, to keep those large companies from mostly going bankrupt, interventionism has been adopted into US Foreign policy. Pearl Harbor and Germany/Japan declaring war on us during WWII were a result of slight interventionism, and a good example of how interventionism does not contribute to our safety.

So I argue a "Conservative" should agree with the government's ability to form a standing army, but also that it refrain from preemptive strike/economic interventionism and to only use military as a means of defense.

 

But I also think the list has more in line with the current Republican party and not "Conservatism." Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are Conservative.

They both want government involvement and power, just in different areas, and also in similar areas. Regardless, the question of Conservatism and Liberalism depend solely on one's view of governmental role in society. More government is liberal, period, because it changes the structure in which the country was founded upon. Is liberal bad? No. Is too liberal bad? Yes. Is Conservatism good? Yes. Is too Conservative good? No.

The problem is that politics has become too much like sports. There are two sides, the Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/Liberals. In reality, democrat/republican have nothing to do with conservative/liberal. Conservative/Liberal are in reference to the constitution and republican/democrat are political parties who wish to circumvent the constitution for their own reasons.

 

hmm I was under the impression the right were fiscally smarter than them socialist/commies...as distasteful as it was to do, bailing out the banks saved your butt, your countries butt, the entire world's fiscal butt... the resulting failure of a banking collapse would've set off a chain reaction that would've completely shut down the world's economy...the depression of the 30's would've been a mild recession in comparison...

 

There are so many listed here on these forums.

But ill give you one for each candidate

Mitt:

As governor, Romney signed a 2004 measure instituting a permanent Massachusetts ban on military style assault weapons, to take the place of a Federal ban, which was then about to expire. The bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban on specific semi-automatic weapons and some shotguns with specific accessories
..................
Rick Santorum:


One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. … This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Ronald Reagan:


If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. … The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

But probely should give a better example,
Rick Santorum voted for H J Res 47 Debt limit increase
.......................

Newt gingrich:
09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for
someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.

He has the longest as far as corruption but eh.. I like the one I posted executing folks for 2 ounces of weed.....yeah thats freedom for ya.
...................

John huntsman I like , love his last name but he is a big spender and after campaigning for spending cuts he instead went on a spending spree and that is what he will do as president if elected.
By the end of 2006, Governor Huntsman had proposed the largest budget in state history. Governor Huntsman’s $10.7 billion dollar budget included billions of dollars in spending on public colleges, millions in teacher bonuses, and a “7 percent increase in per-student spending designed to raise teacher salaries.” Despite using spending as the metric to measure the growth of government in 2004, Governor Huntsman had decided to use growth in government employees two years later. “Utah has spending caps to keep government growth on par with population and inflation. But the Legislature gets to define what growth in government means,” reported the Associated Press. “Lawmakers typically define growth as state spending. But Huntsman said he considers it to be growth in full-time employees. His budget proposes a 1.3 percent increase, less than the recent 2.7 percent rise in population.” In other words, Governor Huntsman could have doubled spending on salaries and subsidies and still kept the “growth” in government to a minimum. He deserves sharp criticism for this spending cap evasion.

When one examines the Cato spending score assigned to each Governor, Huntsman had a 27 in 2008, just over half the average score nationally and one of the worst spending grades in the nation.

In 2007, Governor Huntsman and the Utah Legislature took $1.75 billion in unexpected surpluses and tax revenue and dramatically increased state spending. Overall state spending increased by 17% for the year. Bob Bernick Jr. of the Deseret Morning News noted that if one were to add state funds spent from the previous fiscal year to the following year, then state government spending increased 35.6%. “Think about that for a moment,” he wrote. “State government has grown by more than ONE-THIRD in just two years.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=911
..............

Perry oh my, I like him not for any presidential qualities maybe because he is from my home state and a lot of values he talks up I agree with but he is as dumb as they come and unfit for president

My example for him is his executive order in which he ordered girls to be vaccinated against HPV.

 

The only reason it seems like a "mild recession" is because of the technology that allows for a digital food line instead of an actual food line. 20%+ real unemployment, near or 0 GDP, 10% annual inflation, 40 million on food stamps...

Recession in name only, and no recovery for the US or International economy in sight.. Actually, there have been recent estimates that we will double dip into recession once the US and Europe stop bailing things out.

And, I think the fear tactic of "Shutting down the worlds economy," the tactic used by the people who were in danger of going bankrupt, is pure fear. The world would be a better place without JP Morgan, Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs etc.. Then we could get back to peace, production, and most of all a more free political system in which the large banks did not control the policy of out governments.

 

And so get bailed out, but not allow the same treatment for the smaller people?

Even more of a reason to let the go bankrupt.

 

Just gotta revise the definitions a little. Some of the things RP contemplates are so unbelievably left that he has given new hope to the pot-smoking sandal wearers.

 

I agree, oops. I was assuming that he was trying to define what GOP stands for, not realising that he was actually quoting his own beliefs.

 

Bringing troops home would go west unless they want to travel through Japan, which is in fact left, ok... Name another "unbelievably left" thing about Ron Paul?

 

Excelent post...

 

You're wrong. Ron Paul is the one who is not conservative.

And the Republican party never has been conservative until well entered the XX century.