And on the 105th Day . . .

[luxuryrules]

It's not Obama's job, nor is it the government's job, to try and solve problems. The government IS the problem. If it would just get out of the way, these problems would solve themselves. Government never solves anything; it just creates new problems due to the law of unintended consequences.

Your conclusion about Obama's motives is wrong. He wishes to change America. He has no Constitutional authority to do so. America was built on capitalism; he wishes to do away with capitalism and institute governmental control on everything. That model has failed over and over again in country after country throughout history. Those who wish to change America from the way she was into something else clearly hate this country.

As far as doing something about it, there is absolutely nothing that can be done within the constructs of the law and voting. At this point my vote doesn't count anymore. ACORN can easily counter it with fake votes. Unless there is some drastic change, America as we knew it is finished and will start to resemble European socialist countries. Look at what's happened to Michigan and California due to creeping and even raging socialism and governmental control. That is what will eventually sweep the nation, as Obama has the same thing in mind for the entire country as has been implemented in those states.

I have three scenarios that might play out where America gets back to its capitalist and freedom roots, but that's for another post.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You aren't offering any solutions, merely complaining about the problem.

This starck lack of vision is exactly what caused people like me to defect from your party - and it drove people en masse to the very candidate you so despise.

I'm not even saying that government is not the problem, nor are any of us naive enough to believe the solution will come from the government, but certainly the current government is (according to you guys) taking us down the wrong path. So instead of just telling us we are lost, tell us the correct path to travel. How are the Republicans going to win in 2010 and 2012? How are Americans going to return to prosperity? If we don't start seeing positive ideas to combat the negativity, the Right will fail again - and if the next two elections don't restore some sense of balance to the government then we are all in trouble.

 

[foxpaws]

I really think there needs to be a 'middle' party that can rise up somehow. The left and right both overcompensate for each other, as the right shifts further right, the left inches further left, and in many cases the middle has to choose 'who is less worse'. Currently they think that the left is 'less worse' then the right. The 8 years of Bush pushed middle America to look for other options.

It might be too late to create a Republican party that appeals to the middle American. If the tea parties showed anything, it showed that middle America isn't happy with either side. The problem lies with breaking the boundaries of the two party system. Can there be a viable 3rd party? I hope for America's future there can be. I really don't like filibuster proof Senate and a congress that will rubber stamp this administration's policies - it isn't healthy for the country. Since the Republicans seem to be either shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe just dying out of old age - something else needs to take their place.

The Republican 'brand' is highly damaged and might not be able to right itself. There are even quite a few in the party itself that are wondering this -

So, Foss, since your scenarios aren't likely to happen - you don't see any solutions? That we are basically doomed as a free capitalistic society at this point? There appears to be no turning back in your current mindset - correct?

 

[luxuryrules]

I really think there needs to be a 'middle' party that can rise up somehow. The left and right both overcompensate for each other, as the right shifts further right, the left inches further left, and in many cases the middle has to choose 'who is less worse'. Currently they think that the left is 'less worse' then the right. The 8 years of Bush pushed middle America to look for other options.

It might be too late to create a Republican party that appeals to the middle American. If the tea parties showed anything, it showed that middle America isn't happy with either side. The problem lies with breaking the boundaries of the two party system. Can there be a viable 3rd party? I hope for America's future there can be. I really don't like filibuster proof Senate and a congress that will rubber stamp this administration's policies - it isn't healthy for the country. Since the Republicans seem to be either shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe just dying out of old age - something else needs to take their place.

I agree, a middle party needs to happen. It is just very unfortunate that the System is so ingrained into the two-party method that a third party breaking in and succeeding is next to impossible - the barriers to entry are too high. That's why I'm hoping the Republican party can resurface as something more appealing to the American people, because in all honesty that is the best shot we the voters have of stopping what is effectively a single-party legislation.
Now here is what really scares me: I am a Republican who voted across party lines because I did not like the future the Party was offering. Now, thanks to forums like this, I get dragged through the mud and insulted - this does not inspire me to return to my party. If the Republicans can't even win back their own voters, what hope do they ever have of defeating the Democrats?

 

[Calabrio]

A "middle party."
How ridiculous.
What would it be "middle" on?

We support national security- kind of.
We support sort of higher taxes.
We're for smaller government, every once in a while?

If we are to perpetuate the two party system:
one that continues to expand the powers of the federal government
and one that supports liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government even after they are elected.

 

[foxpaws]

How about 'alternative' party, I was using the word middle to show the type of people who would be drawn to the 'new' party- not the values that the party would entail.

If you want to see why the right fails - read Cal's post carefully - notice the implication that it is 'his way or no way'. The right will continue to fail because of this attitude and presentation of ideas.

 

[Calabrio]

How about 'alternative' party, I was using the word middle to show the type of people who would be drawn to the 'new' party- not the values that the party would entail.

Oh, so when saying "middle party" you're just using marketing and branding. The goal then is to mislead some more people by calling it "middle" while really meaning just "better marketed progressivism."

If you want to see why the right fails - read Cal's post carefully - notice the implication that it is 'his way or no way'. The right will continue to fail because of this attitude and presentation of ideas.

I said no such thing. But if you want to see how dishonest and misleading the progressive left is in this country read everything Fox says.

If you're going to have a "two party" system, then you need to have a choice. More government or less government. More freedom or less freedom. Person responsibility or Government Dependence. And, UNLIKE you and those in your like minded political circles, I think the debate should be done in the open and that it's unethical and contemptible to advance a political agenda on deception and manipulation.

That activists you align yourself with don't have that reservation and rely actually depend on that kind of dishonesty to get elected, gain power, and advance their movements.

 

[shagdrum]

How about 'alternative' party, I was using the word middle to show the type of people who would be drawn to the 'new' party- not the values that the party would entail.

We already have that; the libertarian party. If there is to be a legitimate third party, it will be the libertarian party.

If you want to see why the right fails - read Cal's post carefully - notice the implication that it is 'his way or no way'. The right will continue to fail because of this attitude and presentation of ideas.

More foxpaws distortion and misdirection.

Here are some things to consider from this article:

It's true that a recent Washington
Post/ABC News poll shows that only 21 percent of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, compared with 35 percent as Democrats and 38 percent as independents. But there's a huge difference between party identification and ideological identification.

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, as recently as Aug. 20, 2008, revealed that 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 36 percent as liberal.

So it's the Republican Party that's in trouble, not conservatism. The GOP's shrinkage can't be because it's too conservative. George W. Bush, our most recent Republican president, was hardly an extreme conservative. His most outspoken critics today include wide swaths of conservatives who decried his failure to rein in federal spending and control illegal immigration, among other things.

And the GOP's 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, was hardly a staunch conservative, either, lest he would never have been the liberal media's favorite Republican. McCain didn't lose because of any extreme conservatism. ​

The reason the republicans have been losing is because they were trying to split the middle and be that "middle party" you mentioned. That is what Cal was talking about and why the republicans have failed at the ballot box in recent elections. You are mischaracterizing both Cal's argument and the reason behind the electoral losing streak among republicans when you say it is, "his way or no way".

If you want to start drawing conclusions about general attitude and presentation of ideas, your history on this forum shows that the truth to you is simply something to be manipulated to fit your ideology. Basically ideology trumps reality for you. This leads to deception in the presentation of ideas and facts, hence your two-faced nature. In short, you are a propagandist. That dishonest attitude is the norm for you party as well.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Do you even know what that word means?

I guess you'd call Reagan an anarchist too, because he said the same thing.

Yea. From what i've read/heard, reganomics was the :q:q:q:q back in the day. lol

 

[Calabrio]

Yea. From what i've read/heard, reganomics was the :q:q:q:q back in the day. lol

What have you read/heard?
Would you like to discuss "Reagonomics" or "Supply-Side Economics" as it's more formally referred to? I can't determine if what you're opinion of it is, but do you disagree with any of these things:

Reduce the growth of government.
Reduce taxes
Reduce government intervention
Reduce inflation.

In short, the opposite of the Obamanomics:
Increase the size of government
Increase taxes
Increase the role of government in the free-markets
And embrace a monetary policy that will lead to greater inflation.

 

[fossten]

I really think there needs to be a 'middle' party that can rise up somehow. The left and right both overcompensate for each other, as the right shifts further right, the left inches further left, and in many cases the middle has to choose 'who is less worse'. Currently they think that the left is 'less worse' then the right. The 8 years of Bush pushed middle America to look for other options.

It might be too late to create a Republican party that appeals to the middle American. If the tea parties showed anything, it showed that middle America isn't happy with either side. The problem lies with breaking the boundaries of the two party system. Can there be a viable 3rd party? I hope for America's future there can be. I really don't like filibuster proof Senate and a congress that will rubber stamp this administration's policies - it isn't healthy for the country. Since the Republicans seem to be either shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe just dying out of old age - something else needs to take their place.

The Republican 'brand' is highly damaged and might not be able to right itself. There are even quite a few in the party itself that are wondering this -

So, Foss, since your scenarios aren't likely to happen - you don't see any solutions? That we are basically doomed as a free capitalistic society at this point? There appears to be no turning back in your current mindset - correct?

What a joke. The Republican party has done nothing but try to appeal to the 'center' in the last several years, and it's gotten them nothing but loss and failure. Your analysis is flawed. The very fact that you use Bush as an example of the right shows your gross ignorance of his positions and principles. He was at best a moderate with a strong defense posture, but in no way can Bush be considered a right winger.

Fox, you should be happy. You and your fellow socialists will finally have your utopia where everything is fair and nobody has any unfair greedy wealth and all the misery is equally spread around.