OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[felix]

Wow.

I don’t know exactly the particulars of some of the stuff you posted. However, to consider those you named above as whackos says plenty about you. You and many others may not agree with their politics but they are hardly whackos.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]

Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASP

Reagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.

Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.

I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.

And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]

Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASP

Reagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.

Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.

I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.

And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]

Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASP

Reagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.

Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.

I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.

And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]

Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASP

Reagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.

Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.

I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.

And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]

Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.

It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.

As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.

I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.

Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]

Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASP

Reagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.

Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.

I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.

And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.

[Zeitgeist]

I do not own an AK. And I have never shot at anyone in this life.

[Zeitgeist]

I do not own an AK. And I have never shot at anyone in this life.

[Zeitgeist]

I do not own an AK. And I have never shot at anyone in this life.

[Zeitgeist]

I do not own an AK. And I have never shot at anyone in this life.

[Author]

Posts