TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I don't know who to vote for! Sway me!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I don't know who to vote for! Sway me! - Page 2

post #31 of 57
In my opinion, conservative is exactly what Laureen said and also that the no bailing out - means letting the economy be a 'free economy' and rides the tides without government intervention.
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
Can someone please define "conservative" for me? Because from my viewpoint (also an independent), today's Republicans seem so far from my idea of what conservative is that the term is very misleading.

Last night I listened to a speech given by the "father of modern conservatism," Barry Goldwater. It almost sounded like a speech I could have heard at the Democratic convention. I could support a conservative Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater. I can't give my support to what I hear from most Republican candidates today.
I think a big part of the problem with the Republican party is that it's fractured. The "neo-conservative"/right wing that began to grow during the Nixon regime has, for the most part, been in control of the party for the past three decades. Folks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the elder Bush all go back to that time period and have been heavily involved in G.W. Bush's administration. The more moderate conservatives in the party have been drowned out in recent years.

I think Laureen hit the nail squarely on the head describing who your average conservative Republican would be. I said before in various threads posted in this forum that I don't consider myself a Republican or Democrat but if I had to chose a label (there's that word again) for myself I would say that I'm more of a moderate Republican. I'm more conservative on issues like the military and gun ownership while I'm more moderate or middle-of-the-road when it comes to social issues.
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
well, for me, it means less 'big government' interventions... more legislation at the state & local levels as opposed to the federal levels... strong military, no 'bailing out' of corporations - sorry, headache day, can't think really clearly.
This is the party that wants to change the Consitution, overturn Roe v Wade, has depleted our military on a senseless war, has bailed out any number of corporations, run up a huge national debt... So does that mean the party is no longer conservative?
post #34 of 57
You are not the only one.
I am afraid for this country.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
This is the party that wants to change the Consitution, overturn Roe v Wade, has depleted our military on a senseless war, has bailed out any number of corporations, run up a huge national debt... So does that mean the party is no longer conservative?
well, i don't consider myself a republican [or a democrat or anything else] but a conservative. there are conservative democrats, just like there are liberal republicans.
the passing of Roe vs. Wade was federal intervention at what should have been a state level decision - indicative of exactly the type of thing i don't like. doesn't matter that i'm also morally opposed to abortion - i also don't like a lot of the federal programs/rules/"ideals" regarding education, either [i'm a teacher, btw]. i'm certainly not morally opposed to education, per se - just would rather see more local control, less federal control.
most conservatives [certainly not all, by any means] wouldn't necessarily consider the war "senseless" either. really depends on personal beliefs, to a great extent.
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
Can someone please define "conservative" for me? Because from my viewpoint (also an independent), today's Republicans seem so far from my idea of what conservative is that the term is very misleading.

Last night I listened to a speech given by the "father of modern conservatism," Barry Goldwater. It almost sounded like a speech I could have heard at the Democratic convention. I could support a conservative Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater. I can't give my support to what I hear from most Republican candidates today.
Oddly enough, some conservatives are saying that while they have been a part of the Republican Party for quite a while, it might be time for them to find a new home. And, just as the Democrats squandered their opportunity for real reform during the first two years of Clinton's first term, the Republicans squandered it during the Bush term, and got the same punishment in 2006 that the Democrats got in 1994, losing control of the legislature.

Go find a speech by Hubert Humphrey. He could pass for a conservative today, although he was considered quite liberal at the time.
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Oddly enough, some conservatives are saying that while they have been a part of the Republican Party for quite a while, it might be time for them to find a new home. And, just as the Democrats squandered their opportunity for real reform during the first two years of Clinton's first term, the Republicans squandered it during the Bush term, and got the same punishment in 2006 that the Democrats got in 1994, losing control of the legislature.

Go find a speech by Hubert Humphrey. He could pass for a conservative today, although he was considered quite liberal at the time.
That is what disaffected me from the Republican Party and moved me into Independent and now I find myself more left leaning because the principles I do believe in are no longer served there. A Goldwater Republican would never embrace the religious or moralistic legislation of today and was not supportive of the Republican stance on gay rights and abortion.
Here is a link and there is a link within a link:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remem...ter_5-29a.html

What I found so remarkable about him was that regardless, he maintained his beliefs about small government but was supportive of social equality. He was a man before his time really. He liked JFK as a human being and was able to keep politics where it belonged and not make a personal. It was about ideas versus about people. Nowadays it isn't. Polls have made politicians forget about personal principles and instead change view points in order to get elected.
post #38 of 57
This is the first election I can vote in (I missed being of age for the 2004 election by 3 months), and I'm torn between candidates. I am very strongly against McCain's desire to overturn Roe vs Wade. I am also against the views of teaching Intelligent Design in school.

But yet I'm also against things Obama wants as well. I research and discuss (with people who aren't voting for someone due to color or where they are from, yadda ya). Whether or not I'll figure it out by election time is beyond me. I know not voting is just as bad as picking someone randomly, but I really dont know. I dont think either candidate is a good choice.
post #39 of 57
A little something about BHO's ability to use funding for neighborhood projects. Make of it what you will.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...100-000-gazebo

Me? I think he's too comfortable with using other people's money without making sure its done appropriately. Unlike Ms. Palin, who was able to see that the "bridge to nowhere" was not a good idea, and reversed her position on it and used to lesser amount of money that was already commited towards other projects in the state of Alaska.
post #40 of 57
It doesn't really say anything except an urban renewal project fell through 8 years ago. The amount of money for the Bridge to Nowhere was 223 million dollars. They kept the money even though the bridge was never built and diverted to other projects even though there were other states that legitimately needed the money to fix old bridges.
post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
A little something about BHO's ability to use funding for neighborhood projects. Make of it what you will.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...100-000-gazebo

Me? I think he's too comfortable with using other people's money without making sure its done appropriately. Unlike Ms. Palin, who was able to see that the "bridge to nowhere" was not a good idea, and reversed her position on it and used to lesser amount of money that was already commited towards other projects in the state of Alaska.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
It doesn't really say anything except an urban renewal project fell through 8 years ago. The amount of money for the Bridge to Nowhere was 223 million dollars. They kept the money even though the bridge was never built and diverted to other projects even though there were other states that legitimately needed the money to fix old bridges.
While we're on the subject, Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home

Quote:
ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.
It's difficult to say from what was reported what's usual in Alaska and what isn't, given the huge distances, but it seems clear that the state now needs to explain its practices, particularly regarding the children's travel expenses.
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
While we're on the subject, Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home



It's difficult to say from what was reported what's usual in Alaska and what isn't, given the huge distances, but it seems clear that the state now needs to explain its practices, particularly regarding the children's travel expenses.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/0...lowed-to-bill/
post #43 of 57
Hmmm. Sorry, but I tend to trust actual newspapers and magazines with verifiable histories/archives more than Internet blogs. Ditto obviously extreme sites, no matter whether "left-wing" or "right-wing". The Washington Post article simply raised questions, and was hardly "accusing", so I give it more credence.
post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Hmmm. Sorry, but I tend to trust actual newspapers and magazines with verifiable histories/archives more than Internet blogs. Ditto obviously extreme sites, no matter whether "left-wing" or "right-wing". The Washington Post article simply raised questions, and was hardly "accusing", so I give it more credence.

Well a lot of actual newspapers and magazines have been publishing rumors without verifying whether or not they are true.
post #45 of 57
"Feeding frenzy" is an apt description. The lack of verification/sensationalism applies to both major parties, though, and their lackeys. "Barak Hussein Obama/Osama" is just as objectionable as "Trojan Moose".
Yuck.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
"Feeding frenzy" is an apt description. The lack of verification/sensationalism applies to both major parties, though, and their lackeys. "Barak Hussein Obama/Osama" is just as objectionable as "Trojan Moose".
Yuck.
I don't see anything wrong with saying "Barack Hussein Obama", it's his name. I haven't heard "Trojan Moose" yet. Google here I come.

ETA: Ah, Arianna Huffington called Palin a Trojan Moose. Bah.
post #47 of 57
I think in addtion to Obama's middle name, is the fact that his father was a Muslim. I did hear his Stepfather was Muslim also, but don't know if that is true. His mother, from accounts I have read was an Atheist and pretty Marxist in her leaning but that is not against the law.
I just think if a person is Muslim, own it, admit it and be done with it.
Is he Muslim? Only he knows that.
I am much more concerned with his plan to weaken our military, that is very disturbing to me.

Plus I do not believe and will never believe that Obama sat in the Rev Wright's church for 20 years and was his, self described, "mentor" and didn't have an inkling of the racist, anti-America person he really was. That defies logic IMO.
Oprah Winfrey herself was a member of Rev Wright's church for a short time until she realized the kind of person he is and heard a few sermons. She left that church post haste from what I have read.
post #48 of 57
People use his middle name in a context to try to make it sound like he is Muslim when he is not Muslim. It is one of those disgusting tactics trying to appeal to some people's bigotry. No one goes around saying John Sidney McCain the 3rd. People throw Hussein out there for a specific reason.

Thankfully there are millions of people who are not small minded enough to fall for it.
I don't care if his name is XYZ Stinky DeButt. If his viewpoint matches mine and he speaks to my issues then I vote for him.
Babies can't revolt against their names.

Again another ugly tactic.
post #49 of 57
An interesting perspective on "left" versus "right" from a renowned scholar. Feel free to Snopes him if you think he's some blogger you discredit.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell0900908.php3

Conservatives, as well as liberals, would undoubtedly be happier living in the kind of world envisioned by the left.


Very few people have either a vested interest or an ideological preference for a world in which there are many inequalities.


Even fewer would prefer a world in which vast sums of money have to be devoted to military defense, when so much benefit could be produced if those resources were directed into medical research instead.

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
An interesting perspective on "left" versus "right" from a renowned scholar. Feel free to Snopes him if you think he's some blogger you discredit.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell0900908.php3

Conservatives, as well as liberals, would undoubtedly be happier living in the kind of world envisioned by the left.


Very few people have either a vested interest or an ideological preference for a world in which there are many inequalities.


Even fewer would prefer a world in which vast sums of money have to be devoted to military defense, when so much benefit could be produced if those resources were directed into medical research instead.
It was the way that post WWII U.S. Presidents together fought the cold war that led to the development of terrorism and Al Queda.

So far, in world history war has most often led to more war. rather than to lasting peace.
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
An interesting perspective on "left" versus "right" from a renowned scholar. Feel free to Snopes him if you think he's some blogger you discredit.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell0900908.php3
That was an excellent article.
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecanopener View Post
That was an excellent article.

You should read the rest of his stuff. Amazing....

post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
You should read the rest of his stuff. Amazing....

I have read several of his articles and enjoyed each one. I need to seek out more of his work.
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
It was the way that post WWII U.S. Presidents together fought the cold war that led to the development of terrorism and Al Queda..
hmm, part way true. but not the whole
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
So far, in world history war has most often led to more war. rather than to lasting peace.
Peace is just what happens in between war.
Peace is not a natural condition, of anything on this earth.
post #55 of 57
Thomas Sowell may be an academic economist, but he's also a conservative syndicated newspaper columnist. The linked article is just a pretty standard argument against liberal policies.

While I'm not going to argue economic theory with Thomas Sowell, I feel quite confident to argue about reality. I think that social welfare policies result in measurable good (long term economic effect of the WWII era GI bill, anyone?). I'm not a liberal because I have rose-tinted glasses, but because I think that liberal policies have the best societal outcomes.

The linked article is just a re-statement of two very common ideas. 1)People are liberals when young and full of hope and promise and conservatives when they're old and have amassed a large chunk of cash that they want everybody else to keep their hands off of. 2) Liberals can't possibly deliver the best for the poor because many poor people are not liberals. Personally, I don't think Sowell restating old ideas gives them any new power.

You may agree with Sowell, but that's because you buy the standard philosophy of conservatives, not because Sowell has discovered a powerful new argument against liberal policies.
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enuja View Post
Thomas Sowell may be an academic economist, but he's also a conservative syndicated newspaper columnist. The linked article is just a pretty standard argument against liberal policies.

While I'm not going to argue economic theory with Thomas Sowell, I feel quite confident to argue about reality. I think that social welfare policies result in measurable good (long term economic effect of the WWII era GI bill, anyone?). I'm not a liberal because I have rose-tinted glasses, but because I think that liberal policies have the best societal outcomes.

The linked article is just a re-statement of two very common ideas. 1)People are liberals when young and full of hope and promise and conservatives when they're old and have amassed a large chunk of cash that they want everybody else to keep their hands off of. 2) Liberals can't possibly deliver the best for the poor because many poor people are not liberals. Personally, I don't think Sowell restating old ideas gives them any new power.

You may agree with Sowell, but that's because you buy the standard philosophy of conservatives, not because Sowell has discovered a powerful new argument against liberal policies.
All very true. I heard these same arguments when I was in high school and I graduated in 1961!
post #57 of 57
Some people aren't only attracted to what's new and shiny.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I don't know who to vote for! Sway me!