Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558551]Well some cases could be rape or the health of the mother so that number is hard to grasp. I just really posted this because I have seen several people here say that on abortion the Rep. party does not have a clue but this poll may suggest something different. I don't think anyone would have any traction with either oarty if they took the far left or far right stance on the abortion issue. It seem now that both parties are some where in the middle.[/quote]

I think the poll actually shows why the Pubs have such a hard time. The question of abortion isn't cut and dry in most minds and that poll clearly shows it. When pressed most people allow for abortions in at least some cases. Tell them you're going to outlaw it and suddenly a lot of those people aren't so sure they want to vote for you. At least the dopes who decide whether to vote for someone based on one singular social issue that is about as important to the everyday functioning of our country as Paris Hilton is.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=SmootSmack;558508]Has anyone here read "Grand New Party"?[/quote]

I looked at the synopsis online, that's about all. Didn't know it was a book till you asked that.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;558505]^^ Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.[/quote]

Or more likely ignored till the thought of a small functional government is but a speck in the tear ducts of the galaxy

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558569]I looked at the synopsis online, that's about all. Didn't know it was a book till you asked that.[/quote]

I'd previously heard of the book, but have never read it.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558562]I think the poll actually shows why the Pubs have such a hard time. The question of abortion isn't cut and dry in most minds and that poll clearly shows it. When pressed most people allow for abortions in at least some cases. Tell them you're going to outlaw it and suddenly a lot of those people aren't so sure they want to vote for you. At least the dopes who decide whether to vote for someone based on one singular social issue that is about as important to the everyday functioning of our country as Paris Hilton is.[/quote]

I agree with your assessment. It really is a grey area and not as black and white, at least not in every instance, as some would like to make it. That being said, there's a reasonable argument to made on both sides of the issue.

I find it intriguing how nothing will get people up in arms like the topic of abortion and a woman's right to choose. This debate isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

its also funny how that topic only surfaces come election time. now it will fade away for the next 3.5 years

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558562]I think the poll actually shows why the Pubs have such a hard time. The question of abortion isn't cut and dry in most minds and that poll clearly shows it. When pressed most people allow for abortions in at least some cases. Tell them you're going to outlaw it and suddenly a lot of those people aren't so sure they want to vote for you. At least the dopes who decide whether to vote for someone based on one singular social issue that is about as important to the everyday functioning of our country as Paris Hilton is.[/quote]
Your assuming that the Rep. party is totaly suported by people who believe that any abortion is bad no matter what the case is and I'd say thats a very small % and the party knows that. Its the same thing as thinking that all people who are pro choice think that having an abortion anytime is a womens right. See the far right of the rep. party actually have a means to get their point out through their own net works so we hear more from them. The far left is really only heard from when they are out protesting and busting up stuff.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=dmek25;558607]its also funny how that topic only surfaces come election time. now it will fade away for the next 3.5 years[/quote]

It may have to do with the fact that, at this point, there are only 9 people who really have a say in changing this policy, and each one has a REAL LONG term. Thus, most people know they can't really impact this policy except at the Presidential level.

Obviously this is a Federal issue, because the Supreme Court made it one, but still should not be a "litmus test" for whether a person wants a restrained Federal Government.

" I close my eyes only for a moment and the moment's gone ... dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind."
Kansas

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Anyone hear about how the new CAFE auto standards are going to raise the prices on every aspect of driving? Thank you Democrats. :bs:

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558611]Anyone hear about how the new CAFE auto standards are going to raise the prices on every aspect of driving? Thank you Democrats. :bs:[/quote]
Hey the car companies are in horrible shape. Lets put more restrictions and standards on them to help everyone out. It makes perfect sense. :doh:

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558611]Anyone hear about how the new CAFE auto standards are going to raise the prices on every aspect of driving? Thank you Democrats. :bs:[/quote]Kind of how cap and trade will raise utility prices, and the credit-card bill will raise cc fees/rates for everyone, and the 1.8T deficit will raise the yearly cost of the interest on the National Debt....

Re: The Grand New Party
 

I go to NYC for a minute and look what happens...the government is still trying to screw us but it turns out we're cool with the planet.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558626]I go to NYC for a minute and look what happens...the government is still trying to screw us but it turns out we're cool with the planet.[/quote]I'd hardly say our position with the planet has changed considering the true environmental impact of Obama's initiatives is minimal at best, can't be quantified at worst.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558611]Anyone hear about how the new CAFE auto standards are going to raise the prices on every aspect of driving? Thank you Democrats. :bs:[/quote]
yeah, you will pay more, but also live longer. giving the republicans more time to whine:)

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=dmek25;558659]yeah, you will pay more, but also live longer. [/quote]
yea until you crash one of your new smart cars.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;557901]Yes . . . if they want federal funding. Are you saying that the 10th Amendment is violated where Congress imposes conditions on states that voluntarily accept federal funding? Not even Scalia or Thomas would argue as much.[/quote]
The states would not need all the federal funding if the federal goverment did not take it from them in the first place. It's like they take the money then they dangle it on a string for the states to beg to get it back with all the federal strings attached to the money.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=steveo395;558615]Hey the car companies are in horrible shape. Lets put more restrictions and standards on them to help everyone out. It makes perfect sense. :doh:[/quote]
The car companies will find ways around the laws as they did last time the fedeal goverment imposed higher gas milage standards on them. Thats one of the reasons we see so many SUV's on the roads as the goverment put the higher standards on car which encluded station wagons so the car companies stoped making SW and intruduced theSUV which did not have the restrictions. I'd like to know how they will make a truck that can get 30 mpg and also pull a boat or do the things truck are designed to do.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

It seems [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/powell_to_rush.html"]Colin Powell is on board with a Grand New Party[/URL]. Good for him.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Is [URL="http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/14/socialists-offended-by-republicans-renaming-democrats/"]this not the most pathetic[/URL] thing you've ever heard? They can't be serious!

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558711]It seems [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/powell_to_rush.html"]Colin Powell is on board with a Grand New Party[/URL]. Good for him.[/quote]

[quote]Is [URL="http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/14/socialists-offended-by-republicans-renaming-democrats/"]this not the most pathetic[/URL] thing you've ever heard? They can't be serious! [/quote]

I don't really have a response, just wanted to welcome back the Saden-Link, it has been sorely missed! ;)

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558718]I don't really have a response, just wanted to welcome back the Saden-Link, it has been sorely missed! ;)[/quote]


Thanks...it's good to be back and link once again :)

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558713]Is [URL="http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/14/socialists-offended-by-republicans-renaming-democrats/"]this not the most pathetic[/URL] thing you've ever heard? They can't be serious![/quote]

You and others didn't seem to have a problem calling people tea baggers and othe Rep's names but when the shoe is on the other foot you call it pathetic. With the goverment stepping in and trying to run corps, firing CEO"S, etc... it does look alot like socialism to me.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558722]You and others didn't seem to have a problem calling people tea baggers and othe Rep's names but when the shoe is on the other foot you call it pathetic. With the goverment stepping in and trying to run corps, firing CEO"S, etc... it does look alot like socialism to me.[/quote]

I would like to issue a resolution calling on you to change your name to firstwingnut. Does that work for you?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558723]I would like to issue a resolution calling on you to change your name to firstwingnut. Does that work for you?[/quote]
See you prove my point as you don't reply to what I say you just call me names. Don't think you will find any post from me calling you or any others here names just because they don't agree with me.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558738]See you prove my point as you don't reply to what I say you just call me names. Don't think you will find any post from me calling you or any others here names just because they don't agree with me.[/quote]

Did you read the entire article? Do you understand what the RNC is trying to do? Do you understand the intent of my response to you? Relax, I'm not calling you a name.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558741]Did you read the entire article? Do you understand what the RNC is trying to do? Do you understand the intent of my response to you? Relax, I'm not calling you a name.[/quote]
This is now the second time you have called me a name and then said to relax I didn't call you a name. Ok

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558744]This is now the second time you have called me a name and then said to relax I didn't call you a name. Ok[/quote]

Wow, you can't be serious :doh:

Re: The Grand New Party
 

First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558748]First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.[/quote]
I'll agree with that its just the dems throw out so many names when the rep do then they see it in a different way and that's what I was responding to.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558746]Wow, you can't be serious :doh:[/quote]
Lie it would really bother me that someone on the internet called me a wingnut. I was just pointing out how you seem to throw these names around then act like you never did.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558711]It seems [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/powell_to_rush.html"]Colin Powell is on board with a Grand New Party[/URL]. Good for him.[/quote]
The party of big government spending, big government control and regulation, and higher taxation already exists, it's called the Democratic Socialist Poopy-Head Baby-Eater party.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558760]The party of big government spending, big government control and regulation, and higher taxation already exists, it's called the Democratic Socialist Poopy-Head Baby-Eater party.[/quote]

Sir your not suppose to use Democrats and Socialist together.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Just curious if anyone else noticed the DOD budget proposal Gates unveiled a few weeks ago? Very, very interesting and IMHO a much bigger deal than any of the change Obama is initiating. Basically Gates asked for just a 4% overall budget increase instead of the whopping 8% or 10% Def Secs have often shot for. But more importantly Gates' proposal revealed a big change in strategy...getting away from the inanity of weapons systems like SDI that cost trillions and never produce anything, instead Gates proposed significant growth to the special forces, practical military/technology applications like transport and small engagement weaponry. All in all it was extremely encouraging. Each of the last three decades we've seen trillions of dollars "disappear" into the defense budget for things that never materialized, and almost always under the guise of "classified" status so we never know where the money goes and especially why it produced so little. The opportunity cost of those dollars wasted in the military-industrial complex is almost unfathomable as we now sit on the most decrepit infrastructure of all 1st world nations and a national debt that will soon equal GDP. I think it's really interesting Gates, a Bush man, moved DOD this direction as soon as Obama was elected. Historically Def Secs have unparalleled autonomy in how they run the show and spend the money...Gates likely pushed this change of his own accord which again i just find very interesting.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=The Goat;558770]Just curious if anyone else noticed the DOD budget proposal Gates unveiled a few weeks ago? Very, very interesting and IMHO a much bigger deal than any of the change Obama is initiating. Basically Gates asked for just a 4% overall budget increase instead of the whopping 8% or 10% Def Secs have often shot for. But more importantly Gates' proposal revealed a big change in strategy...getting away from the inanity of weapons systems like SDI that cost trillions and never produce anything, instead Gates proposed significant growth to the special forces, practical military/technology applications like transport and small engagement weaponry. All in all it was extremely encouraging. Each of the last three decades we've seen trillions of dollars "disappear" into the defense budget for things that never materialized, and almost always under the guise of "classified" status so we never know where the money goes and especially why it produced so little. The opportunity cost of those dollars wasted in the military-industrial complex is almost unfathomable as we now sit on the most decrepit infrastructure of all 1st world nations and a national debt that will soon equal GDP. I think it's really interesting Gates, a Bush man, moved DOD this direction as soon as Obama was elected. Historically Def Secs have unparalleled autonomy in how they run the show and spend the money...Gates likely pushed this change of his own accord which again i just find very interesting.[/quote]

I'd say sense the Iraq war we probably have focused more spending on that type of stuff becuase that what we need at the time. So I'm not so sure if that is such a big swing in another driection or just spending on our curent needs.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558794]Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.[/quote]

I think we could cut all goverment programs by 15 to 25% and still get the same thing from each program. It would take cutting alot of waist and also getting rid of alot of goverment and private employees but I think it could be done. The problem is that no one has the balls to suggest anything like this.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558748]First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.[/quote]

Fabulous post. Well said.

I was just thinking today about what specific policy initiatives the Republicans could champion since we didn't exactly hear anything like that in Michael Steele's speech yesterday.

The first two that immediately come to mind are tax reform and energy. Those issues seem to be something the American people could relate to, and something Republicans could take the lead on. With taxes, they should really commit to the idea of reforming the tax code, either with a flat tax for every single American or a national retail sales tax. I heard a comment the other day that really stuck with me -- [I]the government should have no right to know how much money you make.[/I] The federal income tax is an outdated, inefficient, and unfair way to collect revenue. Highlight these points to distinguish from the Democrats who continue to rely on antiquated taxing methods which date back to the 1860's.

With gas prices sure to rise yet again this summer, we'll have the opportunity to drive the point home that it is insane not to tap our own natural resources to free ourselves from foreign oil.

Obviously the Republicans have no power to carry out these ideas with actual legislation. The point though, is to make the American people associate the GOP with bold, fresh ideas. With congressional elections coming around the corner, they can't afford to wait.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558748]First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.[/quote]

Excellent post :food-smil

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558810]How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.[/quote]

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.