I'm just signing in. I'm a Conservative Independent! I've been known to agree with Democrats in the past, but I'm not by any means a fan of Obama!
I'm sorry if this ostracizes me from anyone on here...
Printable View
I'm just signing in. I'm a Conservative Independent! I've been known to agree with Democrats in the past, but I'm not by any means a fan of Obama!
I'm sorry if this ostracizes me from anyone on here...
I'm not Democrat or Republican, registered as independent, don't vote because I don't like how people stand on issues, but it depends on the specific issue whether I side with liberal or conservative.
thought it was spelt with a HQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
apparently there's a "modern whig party" around these days
also bull moose party was another awesome sounding name
Bull moose is a sweet name for a party. It was also started by the manliest of US presidents, I am told.
Manliest by far!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheImmortal
Wow... the posts here.
I am a Republican, a Tea Party member, an activist, an elected Precinct Committee Person and I am currently a candidate for State Representative after winning a Primary Fight... In Portland Oregon.
Gay Rights: Choose any name but marriage == Done Deal
Abortion: No Federal Funds, no forced religious funds.
Constitution: Respect it
I read only a few, but seems I have my work cut out for me in my expanding webactivism.
This is going to be glorious. Given the fact that the majority of people who post in this thread are not American.
It's beautiful how people can't embrace differences in others but have this incessant need to convert them to
what they believe. Usually that is because of fear. The world hates us enough as it is. Just what we need
another person to fuel the fire.
Why does everything need be about America?
Europe is dying fiscally (with some exceptions, e.g. Norway) due to run away liberal social policies.
I can cover European issues to a certain extent as well as American and Asian issues.
There are good and bad sides to every nation on Earth. I greatly admire some of the school systems they have there and would implement the base structure here if I could, though the Teachers Union would never allow it.
The whole world is dying, you're point is?
We Conservatives didn't start the fire, though the Liberals did ignite it we try to fight it.
I can resolve a lot of the issues. Some, like militant Islam, I cannot, but I can show economic paths to success and how to make the world a Conservative Utopia. (No pun intended)
Americans are much worse off than the Europeans you speak of. 40 million poor in the US, living from hand to mouth. Then add those who are poor but not that poor. USA is a class divided society, much like Britain was earlier(and partially still is).Quote:
Originally Posted by CREinstein
As you say, there are good and bad sides to every country on the planet. :)
Anyways, as a Tea Party member, you are very alone in your opinions on God, guns and gays. Your front figures got a lot in common with leaders of Iran and other islamist fanatics, and I'm not exaggerating, sadly. :-/ The things they say, it's nuts!
You sound sane though.
Who are you trying to kid? Both sides caused it. You can't resolve many issues. Probability says
you're going to be just like everybody else. Speaking all your sweet words but not following through.
You start out all nice with promises of change but the change that comes isn't what you promised. It is
usually the opposite.
And I guess you've heard what the Texans are up to? Erasing slavery from history, minimising the roles of fore-fathers like Franklin and Jefferson because they were too liberal(though jefferson was quite the opposite....), inserting new people who played minor roles but had the same ideals as republican fanatics today, and renaming your government form from something democracy to something republic, hoping that will get more ppl to vote republican. And not to mention, making way for creationism, intelligent design, over evolution.
I think I will call you on that one. Source.
Preliminary evidence says your a troll or a wannabe operative, but we shall see.
Someone who has contributed over a thousand posts, posting in a thread that he has been contributing to compared to someone who is
politicking and trying to convert people by the need to work on "expanding webactivism. "
Flutterby I am not some fly by night, I am willing to back my words, and stand by them for life.
You sound pessimistic, but remember Reagan fought a Democrat Congress to effect change. Washington retired after two terms despite cries for him to stay for life. Nixon, despite his flaws, opened a dialogue which is ending communism in China slowly but most assuredly surely. I could go on but you need to find the good in actions as well as seperate them out.
And Reagan revolutionized the jelly bean industry, point?
To be honest your deep point has apparently lost me :p
My point is, a lot of presidents did a lot of memorable and non-memorable things. I don't need a history or political lesson from you.
Until you can respect the fact that I am not a liberal or conservative and that I detest both. You won't get anywhere with me. I believe
what I believe on an individual issue, I don't agree with someone because of their entire platform because the majority of the time it means
if I had to do that... I wouldn't not back any politician. I can't say I would vote for a person due to their political party because to me
that is sheer irresponsibility. I'm an educated citizen. I won't be persuaded or convinced of something that I do not believe in. And to me
you appear to be similar to a Christian that knocks on people's doors and tells them that it's their duty to convince them to believe in something
they don't. I don't want your beliefs forced on me any more than you want mine forced on you.
And the Jelly bean comment was due to the fact that Regan endorsed Jellybelly's when he was in office. Because of his endorsement the company skyrocketed.
I watched a documentary on him several days ago.
I have found anyone claiming neutrality to hard as they politic is a Democrat just trying to disassociate themselves from the party for one reason or another. (US people only ofc)
Well, one thing is for certain. You've never met anyone like me before.
I probably should say something similar back at you.
You would be wrong. I study politics and religion for fun. I'm an observer. I sit here and
watch what people do and what people say. Then you add the ability to sort through patterns
usually it's behavior and speech. Probability says there are more people like you in the world,
than there are me. I tend not to grasp at an idea because it's been spoon fed and easy to
mentally digest. I don't try to push you into believing what I want, I just want you to see
what I think. I could not care less if you agreed with me. You on the other hand, come into
our forums posting about your political stances. I assume, you don't actually play the game.
That you're just here trying to get a barometer reading on how we thing, but.... here's the
best part. The majority of people who read/post in here are either European, Aussie or Asian.
The greatest thing to me is truth transcends all borders, nationalities, ethnics, cultures, languages, histories, politics, and religions.
I come with truth, my word is my bond, and that is who I am, and why I identify as I do.
But truth depends on the individual and what they perceive as truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREinstein
http://www.alternet.org/story/155515...war_on_history
I also noticed how you so elegantly ignored all my arguments, suggesting you are scared to comment the truth.
The Tea Party Movement are only comparable with Islamist Fanatics, compare their opinions and you'll find they are very similar, except for the words "God" and "Allah".
Sigh... guess that is the next thread. Tea Party versus OWS. Your arguments by the way are baseless, bigoted, and very prejudicial.
Stoffi is anything but bigoted and prejudiced. Maybe you should get to know the people around here and ffs stop making so many threads.
If you can't keep your discussion going in a thread without making a new one......
Well let's see...
I am new but am going to be one of the most active.
I start new threads for purposes of preventing thread jackings, for allowing people who dropped out of a thread (for whatever reason) to see the new content.
I abide by these simple rules:
1) The thread must be a bonified new topic, or covering a thread long buried and off the front page.
2) the thread must have content, not a single link or quick comment.
3) that I give a reasonable answer to a reasonable question
4) That I reply if the response was not confusing, or adequate quality, and not trolling.
I generally start slow with a spurt at the start of entering a forum. Eventually when most everyone is willing to concede that I can back my statements I enter rapid mode equal to what the other readers/posters can handle (or just a bit more than counter posting).
I invite broad discussion on any of hundreds of topics or narrow discussion on thousands of topics.
I provoke thoughts and emotions.
I also tend to write a paragraph where a sentence can work, a book where a paragraph works and if someone really just won't stop with emotiohal responses I can write the online equivalent of an epic saga (those posts find if there is a posting length limit on a given forum as well).
As long as you're on topic, thread jacking is quite okay. But question. Do you even play the game
or are you just trying to gain a demographic?
My arguments are based on what Tea Party Leaders say. Are they too bigoted and prejudicial? ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by CREinstein
What about that article I'm linking to? Is it wrong in any way?
You're avoiding the discussion, you got no arguments against it so you become personal. Way to go, you completely lack debating skills and sound like a politician, avoiding losing face by focusing on something else. :)
I am conservative, but the Tea Party creeps me out. And to the rest of you: the Tea Party does not represent all of us (conservatives)
Darling, your whole post is so full of propaganda from Extreme Right news channels, that I finally gave in and made a forum account after avoiding it for two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azartyn
First, ALL presidents have increased expenditures. The difference is that Bush increased the expenditures so much, while Obama increased it less than any other president in the last 50 years. Unfortunately, the United States has been in an economic disaster that was led on by the deregulation of the banks, overspending, and economic speculation that occurred on Wall Street and mortgages (due to Republican/Conservative policies).
As a 30 year old, who has paid for my own gas since I started driving with my learners permit at 15 years old, I have never seen gas at $1.88. For the last 7 years, I have not seen it under $3. Right now, gas costs around $4.45 for medium grade gas next to UCLA. If gas were truly at $1.88 in your (presumably) midwestern state, then check out what state taxes must have been passed to make your gas prices comparable (or higher) to CA gas, which has the second highest gas tax in the nation due to our environmental policies, which have made CA one of the cleanest states in the nation.
The lower unemployment rate is due to the fact that many unemployed Americans have stopped looking for jobs. When the unemployed stop looking for jobs, they are no longer factored into the unemployment rate. The jobs that vanished from the workforce include government jobs (federal and state), which for "small government advocates" should be a benefit of Obama's presidency. However, things get so twisted in Right-wing media that positives are spun into opposite directions.
Now, Obama has been president for almost four years. Surely, that must qualify as "experience" in running a country. Either way, I would prefer to have a "community organizer" be president, as they can empathize and understand the needs of people, rather than the needs of big businesses.
Gas was nowhere near $1.88/gallon when Obama came into office, and you do realize the only reason gas prices went down is because of releasing some oil reserves? Presidents do that every time elections come around if they can.
There isn't some magical switch that suddenly creates new oil supplies, and gas prices fell sharply in 2008. It was inevitable that they would eventually rise to the present level, or close to it.
I don't like Obama much, but at least find some actual reasons instead of making up stuff. There is plenty to dislike about the man and his government.
The problem with the conservative oposition (to be more accurate, the core of the Republican Party) is that it's so ridiculous in this country, and can't get past the idea that being a selfish jackass is a moral virtue. They're so blatantly obvious about it that it's hard to take politics seriously.
Obama's 2nd highest donor in 2008 was Goldman Sachs. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638
Romney's top donor in 2012 is Goldman Sachs. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...2&id=N00000286
American politics is all bought and paid for. Anyone who really believe that Romney is that much different than Obama only has to look at the donor list. When you keep seeing the same names, that should tell you something..
Creinstein has still not replied to my questions. A recent survey shows that this is exactly what politicans do, they avoid commenting on nasty truths by focusing on something else, or they simply ignore it.
I have a theory that they tea party was started by liberals to make republicants look too ridiculous to vote for ever again.
It's sad to see how effective the media's smear campaigns are. I can see that the Ron Paul is crazy message has fit nicely into your skulls. Do you people listen to the debates? All those other candidates speak for ages w.o saying a single word. Ron Paul was the only candidate who would engage in discourse at all, he even sites historical examples as evidence. Everyone else was just stumbling over one another to shout their committee approved talking points at the camera. Go take some classes on debate and re-watch the 2008, 2012 debates and tell me Ron Paul is anything but a lucid champion of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffi
The tea party was started by a a handful of multinational corporations as a lobbying platform. Look up The "Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks" organization. They provided most of the speakers and organizers for the "tea parties". I also see it as an attempt to defuse the civil unrest of the mid term period. GOV'T must have smelled occupy coming and predivided it along party lines to make it more easily discredited publicly.Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev