It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Republican party is not Conservative, and therefore, a complete failure

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
well...that is unless you compare them to most democrats...then i guess you could call that "Conservative."

Increasing the size of our government...increasing our debt....this is what happened the last 8 years. This is exactly why Democrats were voted in across the board because people lost trust in them. Unfortunately, this is going to bite us all in the ass as spending and government are now going to increase at breakneck speeds...along with our debt.

I view the Republican party as a total failure...a party who does not follow what they preach..save for a few.

Republican actually have a real conservative in their party, Ron Paul, but refuse to prop him to be a leader.

Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, Rudy Guiliani.....NONE of these people are "TRUE CONSERVATIVES."

A true conservative will always defend our Constitution and base all their votes upon it. It should go beyond what they personally think is wrong or right. Our country needs to use it's "guideline" to prosper and succeed.

Until the Republican party picks a true "Defender" of the Constitution...they will always be a failure in my eyes.

Make them realize it.

A true conservative does not support war. A true conservative votes strictly based on the Constitution therefore KEEPING GOVERNMENT SMALL.

They had 6 years of complete control and blew it. Even after that, they show no change of actually turning into real conservatives.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I don't have much to add to that. The Republicans have the theory they just don't apply it. That's why I can't really stand behind either party. I do feel McCain would have been an exponentially better choice than Obama but would be COMPLETELY ineffective due to the Democrats nest Congress has become. People are being duped by the Democrats-- but the Republicans aren't producing anything good either.

If Obama's plan is so bad-- which I think it is-- then I hope to God, someone is secretly talking to Obama, helping him 'come up' with new ideas to fix the economy. Because, it seriously doesn't look like he's going to-- and even if the REP came up with a plan, Obama couldn't follow it out of spite, and to save face.

Washington is such a fiasco-- I just hope the Democrats in Congress stand up to Obama and his wealth redistribution.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Ironically the second I posted this I got a call from the Republican Party asking for money. I wanted to tell the woman my thoughts but new she was just some sort of intern, or low paid call woman.

Their computer calls during the election really upset me-- I mean at 2 in the morning??



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ragman
 


Until people realize that Government is really the largest corporation in the world and that we are it's workers...then we will always be the ones who are hurt.

We will never truly be as free as the Constitution states it. People have no "real" representation.

ALso, the fact that people look to senators for help...although 2 out of 3 are millionares. 2 out of every 5 representatives are millionares.

How can all of these "rich" people represent the common man making 30k a year?



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I agree and im sure you will meet a wide agreement here from conservative ATSers that the Republican party is nomore. That being said conservatives, whether they choose to associate with the Republican party or not, still continue to outright defend the same old crap, same politicians, and I tell ya I laugh at the sound when ever conservatives go ahead and claim they are going to start up their own true conservative party. News flash, that party will in turn just become another failed republican party. Why...? because whether folks prefer to deny so or not it is the conservative voters that pony'd up with Bush twice in 2000 and 2004, it was conservatives that gave McCain the majority to become nominee.... and the only ones going against all those are extreme conservatives who would much rather have rush as the leader... which is all fine by me


But yes Ill give Ron Paul his due.... he is the only true walk and talking conservative, the original conservative... but I find his views extreme.... and I believe personally that he is just an apologist on behalf of the disaster that the republican party lead on.... (in cooperation with some democrats) so yes its ideological for me of my dislike for him. But he does keep true... and I like that.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Well, thank you for at least not saying that the last election was a rejection of conservative principles, David. I hear that too often, and it is not true.

I would back Mitt Romney, among the group you listed. He is smart, experienced, and the most conservative among the group you listed.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I always thought Huckabee was ok.... for a conservative.... and mitt romney is more of business tycoon to me... and thats all I picture.. he continued to kiss up on Bush for the last 8years and made excuses last year... he should have been atleast honest and had to balls to admit Bush was not following true conservative values.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





I always thought Huckabee was ok


I forgot about Huckabee. Huckabee always seemed like a nice guy to me...a grandfatherly like type guy. But that doesn't mean anything unless he has actually stands by what he believes in. I don't know enough about the guy to put any judgement on him.

He has the charisma and charm to be a President....but we all know that doesn't make a good President

And as for Mitt Romney..isn't he a mormom? I have nothing against any religion..not at all..but other "republicans" do.

The republican party is the "Christianity" party. Yet another reason why it fails.

The constitution embraces all people...no matter what religion, sex, or color they are.

Republican's don't do this.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Huckabee is definitely not a conservative, but he is a likable guy. His record in Arkansas is mixed at best.

Romney was a Republican governor in Massachusetts, which is as Blue a state as there is.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, thank you for at least not saying that the last election was a rejection of conservative principles, David. I hear that too often, and it is not true.

I would back Mitt Romney, among the group you listed. He is smart, experienced, and the most conservative among the group you listed.


Romney... blah, he says and does anything to get elected... Does This Sound Conservative to you?


But Romney shares another commonality with Obama: He's a liberal in his party masquerading as something more palatable. Yes, sugar and spice and dealing the deck twice, that's what little politicians are made of.

As to this point, another politico he can be compared to is Al Gore. Like Gore, Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, only in the other direction. While he now claims to be pro-life, he supported legalization of the "morning-after" abortion pill, RU-486. Moreover, as recently as his 2002 run for governor his platform stated,

"The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Of course, Romney says that his views have "evolved." But I strongly suspect his adaptation relates more to the evolution of political ambitions than that of conscience. Call me cynical, but unless you've been cloistered in an ancient monastery for the duration, I'm very suspicious of deep personal growth occurring between ages 55 and 59.

According to Romney, unlike himself, the "paradigm" of marriage is not "evolving," and his high profile stand against anti-marriage has garnered him much publicity of late. But here, too, Romney has been about as consistent as March weather, with a track record that belies his newfound traditionalism.

In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney hailed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a "step in the right direction" and "the first of a number of steps" toward homosexuals serving "openly" in the military.

Then, Brian Camenker points out the following in The Mitt Romney Deception:

"Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's 'Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."

Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.

Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.

The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."

Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it.

Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time." My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left.

Equally damning, though, is that in a very ominous way he can be compared to yet another infamous poseur, Hillary Clinton. On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed 1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother's infinite wisdom, determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help, Mitt. Or, is it "Vinny the Chin"? I mean, this sounds like an offer you just can't refuse.


www.freerepublic.com...

Yeah, our current "Republican Party" are no longer conservative... more Moderate Democrats than anything... wishy washy sell outs to power and money.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





he continued to kiss up on Bush for the last 8years and made excuses last year.


I've been reading RP's book. He had some quotes from Bush during the 2000 election.

Unbelievable what he said. I don't have the book in front of me atm...but this is basically what he said during his campaign..

I believe in small government...I believe that the US needs to keep out of foreign affairs to keep it's image strong.

Yeah, THAT ALL CAME TRUE!!

Nothing but lies.

I just wish people would actually act on what they say they believe in. Don't say something and then do the opposite...or play it of as.."well, we had no choice."

Don't act like u are conservative if you really aren't. Everyone just wants to believe in their own version of the Constitution. Why don't they live by the words?

If we acted on the constitution, Congress and the President wouldn't have to do much as most of the BS legislation is is unconstitutional anyway, nor would they have the power they have over us.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


To me, the issues of abortion and gay marriage are the least important when I consider a candidate.

From the source...


"Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's 'Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."

Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.




Perfectly in line with my own values. As I have stated before, I know many many devout Catholic Democrat Liberals who are strictly against abortion, so that is a very gray area to categorize a person.


"The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Of course, Romney says that his views have "evolved." But I strongly suspect his adaptation relates more to the evolution of political ambitions than that of conscience. Call me cynical, but unless you've been cloistered in an ancient monastery for the duration, I'm very suspicious of deep personal growth occurring between ages 55 and 59.


That is the age at when many men become grandfathers, and that causes some deep introspection. Believe me when I tell you.

Romney has been a very successful businessman. He knows economics. That is a key characteristic, imo.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, thank you for at least not saying that the last election was a rejection of conservative principles, David. I hear that too often, and it is not true.

I would back Mitt Romney, among the group you listed. He is smart, experienced, and the most conservative among the group you listed.


I don't know anymore,

I wonder if there are really many left.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of conservatism is. Maintaining the status quo? Strict adherence to the Constitution?

There are various types of conservatism, from cultural, to economic, to religious. Most people are a mixture of various ideologies. I don't think a perfect candidate exists. You have to decide what is most important to you, and which candidate most closely reflects those values.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Speaking as a life-long conservative with traditional values, I couldn't agree more.

The soul of the party has been completely corrupted, to the point where the red team is now nothing more than a puppet of international business, right-wing religious extremists, and bigots.

Show me a Republican who believes in the fundamental principles of small government, personal liberty, state's rights, and constitutional allegiance, and I'll vote for him.

I just can't stomach modern conservatism, with all the trappings of lip-service Christianity, and no allegiance to the principles of the founding fathers. You can't be a Christian and a racist/bigot, it's just not possible, I'm sorry. You either love your neighbor, or you don't. And by the same token you can't be a conservative pushing something like the DHS - it's anathema to conservative values.

The idea of Christian conservatives attacking gays and minorities, and the poor, while increasing the size of government is just insane. It's bizzaro world, 180 degress away from right.

I find that the only refuge for conservatives these days (real conservatives) is in the Libertarian corner. They're definitely the closest to our values and our ideals.

I honestly think the Republicans and Democrats should stop the charade and just form a single party, the Republicrats. They feed from the same trough, they both want a government the size of Godzilla, neither party want the states to have any sort of power, and neither party gives a damn about the constitution. They're perfect for one another...

Seriously, where do real conservatives go these days? Where can we turn for a candidate that shares our frustration with the current situation?

I remember wanting to cry into my coffee the morning I heard the office of John Ashcroft talk about their main priorities being the enforcement of obscenity and drug laws. WTF is wrong with these people? The government has absolutely no charter to engage in that sort of activity. Ugh...



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WyrdeOne
 





Seriously, where do real conservatives go these days? Where can we turn for a candidate that shares our frustration with the current situation?


First of all....loved your post.

I agree almost entirely. You sir....you get it. This country needs more people like you.

I think we are a dieing breed...at least in terms of having representation in Congress.

I like much of what RP preaches..the problem is he isn't charismatic enough...he doesn't have a "fire" within him. This is what the country needs. I wish he could do it...show some anger...show some emotion. I never reallly see it from him. Unfortunately people will not vote for someone who stands by what they believe in. They vote on celebrity status and narrative.

Where is the the person who can do both? Where are they? Is there no one who cannot speak well, look good, stand against big government, defend the constitution, and actually do the things they speak?

Where has the honor of our Constitution gone?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by David9176]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
In the Seventies, after the Nixon debacle, I predicted the end of the Republican party.

I was wrong then and those who predict the end of the Republicans now are just as wrong.

Clearly, the Republicans have suffered a serious setback in terms of public opinion, but there is really no reason to believe that the party is dead or even moribund.

It may take some time, but eventually someone will emerge, perhaps from the private sector, who will rally conservatives.

There is no other party currently in existence that even comes close to being comprehensive enough to encompass the varieties of American conservatism.

The Republican party can and will survive and flourish.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
David9176 you sure do start a lot of threads. I do enjoy them, however. I agree. The Republican party is by no means conservative. My sister pointed out to me that GW Bush was president when the government spent more money than all of the presidents prior combined. I didn't check into this, but it seems plausible to me. However I pointed out to her that under Obama, in less than two months, he is overseeing a deficit that equals about four years of Bush in just one year of spending.

GradyPhilpott. I agree with you. The Republican party will rise from the ashes once again. It has to. there are 46 percent of American voters who will not stand for complete Democrat control for very long. And they will bring many swing voters with them again. I just hope the next time the Republicans get control that they stick to conservative principles and show America the way it's supposed to be in accordance with conservative values Our founding fathers were quite the liberals when they formed this county, but now they would be considered conservatives. .



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, thank you for at least not saying that the last election was a rejection of conservative principles, David. I hear that too often, and it is not true.


How was it not? After 6 years of GOP rule they lost the Congress. Then in 2008 they lost more and the White House. 2010 isn't looking to good for them either. People are tired of the top1% holding all the power and voted out their puppets. No more Halliburton CEOs in office. No more Exxon CEOs in the Cabinet. No more War Mongers in the Pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join