# Meghan McCain is the new face of the Moderate GOP



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I've often advocated that the Republican Party either has to change how it defines it's base, or be prepared to lose a huge portion of its current memebership. To me there is a HUGE divide between old Guard GOP members, and newer more moderate younger generations who don't subscribe to all the hard line views of the old Guard.

The GOP is at a crossroads, and many others across the Party agree.

I have a feeling if the GOP doesn't address these needed changes, they will again lose another set of elections.

You've heard it here first. I predict that Meghan McCain might be a key possible nominee for this new more Moderate GOP party, and/or that if the Old Guard GOP doesn't embrace the views of the more moderate GOP, that it will split off and cause a riffe.

Take a moment to watch this YouTube video of Meghan McCain. Pay attention to her words boys. A LOT of moderate Republicans feel as she does...

Food for thought.






She is bright, well spoken, hip, has the famous name/pedigree, and represents a younger generation that is sorely needed by the GOP if it plans on competing in future elections.

I have a strong feeling we'll be hearing more and more from her! You heard it here from me first...


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Ain't gonna happen.

You think Palin had no qualifications as a governor? Exactly what qualifications does she have, course she could be a community organizer for a couple of months down the road.

The moderate route was tried, it was called John McCain.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree her dads a moron also.

She said 80% of people under thirty consider themselves a democrat :lol: :lol:

90% of them have no life experience, are living on the daddy and mommys nickel and have no clue about the world. Most have never paid taxes and have been educated (really indoctrinated would be a better term) by a left wing dumbded down GOVERNMENT school system.

This current government will fall as a result of this fact maybe the entire country

no socialist country has the opportunity we have but most of these idiots voted into office a marxist who is rapidly detroying our economy with his naive adjenda.

They are going to regret it you heard it here first :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

southdakbearfan said:


> Ain't gonna happen.
> 
> You think Palin had no qualifications as a governor? Exactly what qualifications does she have, course she could be a community organizer for a couple of months down the road.
> 
> The moderate route was tried, it was called John McCain.


1. Meghan has the famous name.
2. Her family wealth guarantees a foot in the door to play the game at least up thru the early primaries.
3. She is female, and would garner many moderate Dem and fence sitting Republican females.
4. She already has experience on the national stage, speaks regularly about national politics, and has more experience than Reagan did.

The moderate route was not tried. McCain screwed up by having Palin on the ticket and that swung undecideds over to Obama.

Palin cost McCain a chance at squeeking out the election. Thankfully her 15mins of fame is over.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your in a state of denial because of your hatred Ryan. Palin brought votes to liberal McDuffus. 
The republican party can not out liberal the democrats. Their only chance is to return to their roots. I can see why you would want them to be more moderate, your liberal. I didn't say you were democrat, I said your liberal. Nothing would guarantee a republican loss like moving further left. 
Say, why don't you tell Obama to be more moderate?

Bobm, again your spot on. :thumb:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree her dads a moron also.
> 
> She said 80% of people under thirty consider themselves a democrat :lol: :lol:


Ahem..



> http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008050101
> 
> THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING REPUBLICAN BASE
> Societal trends reshaping the American electorate
> ...





> http://www.polltrack.com/presidential/t ... ger_Voters
> 
> The Democrat's (Not So) Secret Weapon: "Millennial" Voters
> Posted Nov 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM by Maurice Berger
> ...





> Significant Generational Shift In Electorate: Young Voters Now More Democratic
> 
> Posted Nov 20, 2008
> by Maurice Berger
> ...


Denial is not only a river in Africa


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I can see why you would want them to be more moderate, your liberal. I didn't say you were democrat, I said your liberal. Nothing would guarantee a republican loss like moving further left.
> Say, why don't you tell Obama to be more moderate?
> 
> Bobm, again your spot on. :thumb:


:lol:

No Plainsman. I'm just _more_ moderate than those who normally post in here. You still don't know liberals.

We have them out here in the left coast. I'm conservative to them when we discuss politics. They can't believe how Conservative I am.

Consider that a moment. 

The problem you have is that you think you have the Republican pulse pegged as to what is liberal, moderate or conservative. I've watched your posts, and you are consistently ultra conservative. I say that only in an analytical sense with no disrespect intended...

But that is part of the issue the overall Republican party will face....

e.g., I mean the following:

1. The party needs to rebuild itsself.
2. It needs to become less rigidly hard line Conservative
3. That will mean many current "leaders" by actual leaders and thought leaders, will need to step aside.
4. The problem is they don't realize it yet thru obliviousness, or rather they don't care, & the enjoy their relative power/fame, and aren't going out easily but rather kicking and screaming.
5. Many older ultra conservative voters don't like the idea that their preferred brand of ultra conservatism is on the way out, and will also go out kicking and screaming to maintain the hardline.

Did you watch the video of Meghan McCain? She said something to the effect of telling Rove to step aside. LOTS of Republicans feel that way!

ohhh... and for the record... Obama has become more moderate since taking office. He has found he needs to govern more from the middle. (as all Presidents do) Congress has pushed the left agenda. Obama has tried doing exactly what he campaigned on doing. He hasn't gone ultra left, but rather has implemented the very things that excited people into voting him in to office. But let's not get this thread side tracked with swipes at Obama... this thread is not an Obama thread


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

Bobm said:


> I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree her dads a moron also.


Moron??????? Just who the fock are you to say **** like this???


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Here is a great article that shows some of the denial that the old guard GOP still adheres to

It is this type of sentiment that will cost the GOP another round of elections in 2012



> Republicans through the looking glass
> 
> After 20 percent of US conservatives voted for Barack Obama, the Republican party was left in tatters. So what next?
> By Oliver Burkeman
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the republicans lost this time because they were to moderate. McCain lost the republican base. I know many that didn't bother to vote because they thought we would get a looser either way. No one won in the last election, it will just take some guys another year to realise they lost. 
If the republicans want to win they have to move away from the moderate and back to the conservative. 
I'll say this again for the tenth time. It's all perspective. You see me as very conservative, and I see you left of liberal. If you still think Obama is ok I think your socialist, and no I am not calling names I mean what I say. If the people on the coast think your conservative, I am left totally baffled that, that, that, I don't know what to think of them as.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan I could selectively take small chunks of your post if I wanted to make you look like you said something you did not. :roll:

McCain is a moron I disagree with him on virtually every policy issue thats my opinion.

secondly I didn't say 80 % of young people aren't dems I said they are dem's because they dont know squat about life in general... totaly different meaning then your quote of me with your supporting article.

And the genious's that write that young people are Dems as if it is something new are funny also thats been the case since the 60's when I was a kid for the exact same reason, people under thirty are politically ignorant.

I was a lib Dem once upon a time in a faraway land :lol: :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I think the key passages from that article above are:



> But now he says US conservatism has suffered a "psychic defeat" - a disease of which the Palin-worship at CPAC was a symptom.
> 
> *"One of the stages in the decline of a political movement is the moment when it comes to feel beaten. And in that moment it becomes reactionary, because there's a sense that to engage with the modern world in any way is to give up your beliefs,"* he says.
> 
> ...


Ring any bells of resonance?

It should.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> And the genious's that write that young people are Dems as if it is something new are funny also thats been the case since the 60's when I was a kid for the exact same reason, people under thirty are politically ignorant.
> 
> I was a lib Dem once upon a time in a faraway land :lol: :lol:


:lol: those were quanitative polls of the demographic break down of voters. It wasn't just the opinions of genius authors.

everyone goes thru a lib Dem phase right? :thumb:

No worries Bob. no offense given or taken.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan Frums opinion is like mine or yours, just an opinion

I disagree with his, the thing about opinions are they are just that opinions, not right or wrong....

Time will tell


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

R y a n said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > And the genious's that write that young people are Dems as if it is something new are funny also thats been the case since the 60's when I was a kid for the exact same reason, people under thirty are politically ignorant.
> ...


SO whats your point???? I didn't dispute the numbers and its not a new thing is all I said.

I'm saying that the number are the result of political ignorance due to youth and inexperience, if 100% of people of all ages are Democrats I would still have that opinion :wink:

but them I'm not a socialist


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Those 20% have or soon will realize they were hoodwinked by the media into turning an election of a new president into a referendum on the last one after 6+ years of spewing hatred, plus McCain was a horrible candidate, he isn't a conservative or liberal, he is just kinda blah, the dead skunk in the middle of the road.

The majority of the younger voting population votes for president like they vote for american idle. It will all be a popularity contest until they figure out that mommy or daddy can't foot the bill for college, new cars or whatever, due to the fiscal policies of the current adminstration and it's strangling of the economy.

Bush was not a conservative, especially fiscally. You can't spend like crazy and cut taxes, math doesn't add up. True conservatives value lower taxes and fewer gov't entitlement programs therefore cutting gov't, the deficit, and encouraging business.

Obama has but one hope of re-election. A huge congressional swing, like when Clinton was in and the republicans took the house and senate, by true conservative politicians, be it republican or democrats. And having them cut gov't back, not increase it, giving the money back to the people whom make it, not the ones standing with their hand out, while encouraging business, especially small business.

Politics is simple, like I said before, you hurt people's pocketbooks and trample on their rights you will be booted out on the street. Hopefully we do boot the vast majority of the out because they are all pretty much worthless, and put in people whom really have the best interest of the majority of americans in mind, and not the special interests/welfare/handout/bailout groups.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The last election was anything but a clean contest. First democrats were voting in the republican primary and you know they didn't vote for the best candidate. Then Rush Limbaugh started the same thing with his audience. On top of that ACORN started registering homeless and others to vote for Obama multiple times.
Now we have left wing people trying to tell the republicans they have to become more moderate. These people are not trying to help the republican party, they are trying to destroy it. Think about it if your in a contest with someone do you really think they are going to tell you how to win? Only an idiot believes that, or someone extremely childish and naive. When advise comes from the left it's meant to diminish your standing. They play this game like that survival bunch of fools on TV.

The other thing about this advise from the left. It's much like the McCain/Obama race again. They wanted McCain for two reasons. One, he didn't stand much of a chance because republicans left to their own choice would never have picked him. Second, if McCain won they still had a liberal in the White House. Likewise you can rest assured that advise now coming from the left is meant to have the same affect. It's meant to try undermine people like Sara Palin, Bobby Jindal, etc.

The left lay awake at night with nightmares about a conservative government. Like we worry about the first and second amendments they worry about the future of gay marriage, abortion, etc. So at the same time they promote their people they try to water down the conservative efforts. All this talk about becoming more moderate is simply long range planning to destroy the conservative candidates. We should all be thinking ahead also, or we will be playing catch up again. When you deal with the treacherous you better be prepared.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Well i am 29 and all my freinds are sick and tired of young people being called liberals. It is the chickshat little whiney snivelling young people still living off of momy and daddy that have made it harder for me. My freinds and i believe we need to get back to conservative views away from big goverment and spending. we have to work hard because we came from white middle class familys and have had nothing gave to us ie: affermative action and other social programs like this. The way we look at it is we are going to have to live in the best country in world and try to keep all the idiots on the east and west coast from trying to ruin it. Those people on the coast are not needed for anything(except lobster). Give me one good reason that they should get to ruin this country that i served to protect and i really have no say since i live in a sparcley populated state. I just look at all this crap that is happening and find my self thinking boy i hope my son gets to experience the great things that SD has to offer but we keep going this way of the liberal *****, pretty soon we will not have states anymore just the NWO and not the one that hulk hogan ran. So dont lump me in with these mocerate liberal what ever they want to call them selves. If they would just go back to the conservative roots we came from it would be surprising how many young people would vote.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, Bob may have to rework those figures for North Dakota and South Dakota. I agree with Bob, but maybe we should say that it's only 70% in our area, and 90% on the coasts. In any event, I thank you for your post. I'm sure there are many independent people your age in our area.

I keep remembering and old quote. "Show me a man 20 years old who isn't liberal and I will show you a man without a heart. Show me a man over 40 years old who isn't conservative and I will show you a man without a brain." Hearts rule the young, experience and brains rule the more mature. The rosy thoughts we have in our youth we find in our mature years are not possible. No more possible than Bugs Bunny, Wylie Coyote, the Road Runner, or Donald Duck taking you for a Sunday afternoon drive.

So, the fantasy of everyone living comfortably without working is about as likely as that same teenagers fantasy that the entire Dallas Cowboy cheerleader team is going to molest him. 

Years ago most of the young would have been liberal. Today many are smart enough to see that liberal is no longer just wanting everyone to be treated well, it has morphed into much less. Today many have been deceived into thinking lack of morals is simply tolerance. Every fringe group and pervert promotes tolerance today. I cringe to think what liberals will ask us to be tolerant of in the future. Tolerance and political correctness are weapons to destroy morals and principles. They wear the disguise of kindness.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> The last election was anything but a clean contest. First democrats were voting in the republican primary and you know they didn't vote for the best candidate. Then Rush Limbaugh started the same thing with his audience. On top of that ACORN started registering homeless and others to vote for Obama multiple times.


You have to justify the loss somehow. The losing side always does. I'm not saying it was right, honoroable or lawful. I think it is despicable for both sides. I'm sure you do too..

But ultimately this is not the reason the contest was lost.

Remember those "youth" voters across the country you mocked? You know.. those ones you said "Wouldn't turn out for an election"?

*They did.* In huge numbers.

Remember those black folks who don't vote in elections, and couldn't be counted on to show up on election day.

*They showed up.* In huge numbers.

Remember those Hispanic voters the GOP Party continues to alienate by demanding total immigration restrictions? You know... the largest growing voting/population demographic in the country?

*They showed up.* In huge numbers.

Ohh and let's not forget those silly gays. You know... the ones that Repubplican fundies insist on denying marriage to? Yeah them too...

*EVERY SINGLE ONE SHOWED UP TO VOTE FOR OBAMA*.

I remember you guffawing my prediction of a landslide. I remember you mocking those categories of voteres probably not showing up on election day. I remember a poll I posted on here, asking the readership to predict the election outcome a week before the election. Ohhhhh yes Plainsman. I remember.

So please Plainsman. Spare us the pity party. The GOP party had it coming in spades seeing how the previous 8 years went.



Plainsman said:


> Now we have left wing people trying to tell the republicans they have to become more moderate. These people are not trying to help the republican party, they are trying to destroy it. Think about it if your in a contest with someone do you really think they are going to tell you how to win? Only an idiot believes that, or someone extremely childish and naive. When advise comes from the left it's meant to diminish your standing. They play this game like that survival bunch of fools on TV.


Seriously Plainsman. *Did you read the entire long article I posted above?*

What advise is coming from the left? From me? Once again you are turning this thread into a me thing. The articles I posted I didn't write. I completely agree with them, and am very much advocating them though.



Plainsman said:


> The other thing about this advise from the left. It's much like the McCain/Obama race again. They wanted McCain for two reasons. One, he didn't stand much of a chance because republicans left to their own choice would never have picked him. Second, if McCain won they still had a liberal in the White House. Likewise you can rest assured that advise now coming from the left is meant to have the same affect. It's meant to try undermine people like Sara Palin, Bobby Jindal, etc.


I refer back to the kicking and screaming quote from the previous post.

Pot. Kettle?



Plainsman said:


> The left lay awake at night with nightmares about a conservative government. Like we worry about the first and second amendments they worry about the future of gay marriage, abortion, etc. So at the same time they promote their people they try to water down the conservative efforts. All this talk about becoming more moderate is simply long range planning to destroy the conservative candidates. We should all be thinking ahead also, or we will be playing catch up again. When you deal with the treacherous you better be prepared.


I think this was part of the speech given at the CPAC convention. It is exactly the type of ultra conservative right wing rhetoric (or some might say kicking and screaming), that many moderates know will (and would) come from the far right. They aren't going to step aside quietly. Everyone knew they would.

Plainsman I think you are missing a huge part of my point in these posts. The far right of the GOP is on the decline. That portion of the party can either go quietly, and enable the transition to happen smoothly, resulting in future wins for the future Party. Or it can go down kicking and screaming, spreading seeds of fear and discontent. Posting scare tactics like your previous posted paragraph, and many other mantras you continue to post here.... and if nothing changes, the current hard line ultra right old guard clings to control... you will again see more and more losses at the polls.

This is not a message from Ryan. Simply go to your favorite Conservative websites and read what all of them are writing. They also see the writing on the wall. It is the Reagan generation that doesn't see that writing...

Or they do, and they just refuse to admit the old tactics no longer impress the majority of the electorate.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This is not a message from Ryan.


The message wasn't originally from you, but you back it to the hilt and indicate the republicans have to do it. I'm not a republican by the way I am conservative. 
You still have not faced what you are. Your for gay marriage, your for ammo control, you voted for Obama, and in one of these posts you tell you how conservative you are. I simply challenge you because I don't think conservatives should take advise from someone as liberal as you. We already have one liberal party, and having two liberal parties leaves out the majority of Americans. Yes, I did say majority of Americans.

When I make you face these things you whine that I am attacking you. You say it's not your article, then you talk about your points. I'm telling you the article is wrong, and so are your points, and your welcome to tell me I am wrong. Conservatism isn't dead, and the republican party will have to decide if it wants some democrat/moderate votes, or if it wants conservative votes. It's actually very simple. They go for moderate and other parties or other people take the vote. Look at the first run Bill Clinton made. Do you think he won by popular vote? Ross Perot put Bill Clinton in office, and the republicans better remember it. He got either 48 or 49% of the vote. 
By the way Ryan since when is 52/48 a lanadslide?

I knew the blacks would show up, it was a racist vote.
I knew the gays would show up.
I knew the Hispanic would show up.

I also knew the criminals would vote for Obama.
I also knew the freeloaders would vote for Obama. 
I also knew that people who actually hate this country would vote for Obama.
I also knew that people who hate industry would vote for Obama.
I also knew that the union people would vote for Obama.
I also knew that the illegal aliens would vote illegally for Obama.
I also knew the Muslims would vote for Obama.
I also knew the anti religious would vote for Obama. 
I could go on.
I gave the youth to much credit and expected better from them.

In the end I will not sacrifice my principles nor will I deceive others by pretending to, and I don't think the republican party should either. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. If people think I am mistaken I am ok with that. I don't have any need for everyone to look at me as some political genius. If I change one mind I am happy. If I post some information that someone finds useful I am very happy. If people don't insinuate that I am stupid I am grateful. These are all just opinions, and if no one agrees with me ----well, big deal. It's still wonderful that we live where we can express our opinions. You will not hear me whimper, so I really don't have a need to justify why the republicans lost.

I simply have a vision where the republican party should go that differs vastly from yours. The republicans are supposed to be the conservatives, but they are not. I'm not happy with either party.

I am happy to get opinions from you Ryan, because I think we display two different paths for America. You and I are sort of like Hannity and Colmes. You aren't confused about which is which are you?  In that light what do you think of Obama's performance so far? I'm also interested in what you think about prosecuting Bush officials on "terrorism" charges. Personally I have seen just as tough initiation for high school years ago. Oh, yes, and have you changed your mind on ammo control? I really would like to know where you stand since we are in danger now. Last, do you still think North Dakota is isolated and uninformed and do you think I am foolish for being proud to live here?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

it's really pretty simple. if you are in favor of all Obama is doing, you are in favor of the destruction of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and support socialism, redistribution of wealth and One World Government....it is all Marxist in nature, you simply have to read the manifesto. to say it ain't so, is denial....look at yourself in the mirror......and say you support the Constitution and the founding fathers....if you follow and believe in Obama, you can't do it....you can't.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I guess I look at M. McCain opinion and Brians points like this:

If you were playing a game of chess for one million dollars, and your opponent started offering you advise ----are you dumb enough to take it?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > This is not a message from Ryan.
> 
> 
> The message wasn't originally from you, but you back it to the hilt and indicate the republicans have to do it. I'm not a republican by the way I am conservative.


And I'm not a Democrat by the way, I'm a moderate. 



Plainsman said:


> You still have not faced what you are. Your for gay marriage, your for ammo control, you voted for Obama, and in one of these posts you tell you how conservative you are.


I have not faced what I am? Which is?

I know lots of moderate Republicans besides me that didn't vote for McCain. I think we even have a few that post here on occassion. 



Plainsman said:


> I simply challenge you because I don't think conservatives should take advise from someone as liberal as you. We already have one liberal party, and having two liberal parties leaves out the majority of Americans.


It would appear that your opinion is not held by many folks considered highly respected Republican (not conservative) voices.



Plainsman said:


> Yes, I did say majority of Americans.


Then you would be wrong if you believe a majority of Americans are conservative. You apparently didn't read that article, or review the associated links I posted at the beginning of this article showing the statistics.



Plainsman said:


> When I make you face these things you whine that I am attacking you. You say it's not your article, then you talk about your points. I'm telling you the article is wrong, and so are your points, and your welcome to tell me I am wrong.


You're wrong. 8)



Plainsman said:


> Conservatism isn't dead, and the republican party will have to decide if it wants some democrat/moderate votes, or if it wants conservative votes.


If it isn't, it is on it's last legs of garnering enough votes to be relevent. You are correct that the GOP will need to decide which path to take. The status quo of believing that the ultra conservative far right trying to lead and dicate policy down to the rest will no longer pass muster.

Moderates will no longer be led down a path by them, and will desert to the Democratic party unless they give up their stranglehold. It is up to them.



Plainsman said:


> It's actually very simple. They go for moderate and other parties or other people take the vote. Look at the first run Bill Clinton made. Do you think he won by popular vote? Ross Perot put Bill Clinton in office, and the republicans better remember it. He got either 48 or 49% of the vote.


That is your post mortem analysis of that vote. Others would explain the percentages differently and tell you that Ross Perot showed the Repbublican Party (or should have but apparently based on last election failed) that the moderate end of the party didn't like the ultra conservative stances on important items.



Plainsman said:


> By the way Ryan since when is 52/48 a landslide?


Depends on how you base your numbers. It could have been much much bigger, but many Dems didn't turn out knowing the outcome on the West Coast by the evening.



Plainsman said:


> In the end I will not sacrifice my principles nor will I deceive others by pretending to, and I don't think the republican party should either.


Once again we come back to the premise that the Republican party is led/controlled by folks that many feel are too conservative. Who get "the say" in who leads the Party? There is a growing discontent that a small group of ultra rich influential big whigs dictate policy to the little peon masses (just look at who hosted and who was invited to the CPAC event at the donor's home in the article above)

The "Republican Party" (stated in quotes intentionally) doesn't represent a growing number of Americans who believe in a platform that more closely resembles the changes I stated above, including limited governement, low(er) taxes than Democrats propose, more state's sovereign rights, AND that they should

1. emphasize healthcare reform over tax cuts, 
2. develop an environmental message, 
3. tone down the pro-life, anti-gay marriage rhetoric and 
4. focus on the factor that drew so many conservatives away from McCain/Palin and toward Obama: not political ideology, but the sheer question of competence.

If the "new" more moderate suggestions can become the Republican Party's mantra with those ideals blended in... they have a much better chance of making in-roads. However... given the current cabal of power held by a few overly involved self important "leaders", we know this won't happen soon. (See kicking and screaming way above)



Plainsman said:


> I don't expect everyone to agree with me. If people think I am mistaken I am ok with that. I don't have any need for everyone to look at me as some political genius. If I change one mind I am happy. If I post some information that someone finds useful I am very happy. If people don't insinuate that I am stupid I am grateful. These are all just opinions, and if no one agrees with me ----well, big deal. It's still wonderful that we live where we can express our opinions. You will not hear me whimper, so I really don't have a need to justify why the republicans lost.


:thumb:



Plainsman said:


> I simply have a vision where the republican party should go that differs vastly from yours. The republicans are supposed to be the conservatives, but they are not. I'm not happy with either party.


I disagree. The republicans are not supposed to be conservatives. They are supposed to be Republicans. The conservatives have latched on to the party, it's leadership and rammed their message down the throats of others who agree with lots of general Republican base principles regarding taxation and limited government, but DONT agree with the overt influence of various religous entities, Big Corporate business favoritism, and poor environmental ideologies.



Plainsman said:


> I am happy to get opinions from you Ryan, because I think we display two different paths for America. You and I are sort of like Hannity and Colmes. You aren't confused about which is which are you?


 And I you Plainsman! :beer: Seriously! I enjoy the good banter... you have taught me a thing or two or three 

No I think I got an idea about which one I might be.. though he wasn't always the best representative for the other side..



Plainsman said:


> In that light what do you think of Obama's performance so far?


I think Obama has both delivered on promises made, and severely disappointed me in other areas. If it was just a few of us having the conversation, we could maybe start a thread and have the others watching from the sidelines, but too many folks like taking potshots, so I don't know how in depth I'd go on here..



Plainsman said:


> I'm also interested in what you think about prosecuting Bush officials on "terrorism" charges. Personally I have seen just as tough initiation for high school years ago.


I'm torn regarding this. On the one hand, I'd like us to move on and not dwell on the past. What's done is done, and taking the time and money to go after those responsible is not the best use of our resources at the moment. I would however, like to eventually go back after the select few at the top, who made the final legal call indicating that waterboarding was legally justifiable.

Neither party can claim the upper hand in this sad period of history, as for the record, Dennis Blair (Obama's National Intelligence Chief appointee acknowledged the effectiveness of waterboarding) and Nancy Pelosi (although she is now backpedaling go figure) knew about these "harsh interrogation methods". I remain against waterboarding and agree with Obama that no Bush officials should be prosecuted. It will set a bad precedent for future administrations. I've read some very though provoking stories for background on this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Also, this essay intrigued me.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/linker/a ... rture.aspx

Finally, we must put this in perspective:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... ure_memos/

I'm profoundly troubled by those who imply that torture might have produced the 'intelligence' that 'saved' the US from another attack like 9/11. This is Cheney's argument and, in its simplest formulation, is an argument for the ends justifying the means. I find this a disturbing point of view, frankly, because it sees no limit to what the state can do in the name of safety. Torture by a state in the commission of a war is a *war crime*. Personally, I think people should face trials for their actions so that in the future state power is never envisioned as limitless. Obedience to the chain of command was not justification for participating in war crimes at the Nuremberg trials, nor should they be now. We don't get a pass because of who we are. Future administrations in the US should be chastened in their pursuit of international conflict for the good not only of the US but also of the international community.

You know, we executed Japanese war criminals for similar activities that are now being described in these reports. Efficacy is not at issue here and should have not come into the debate, there are many effective activities that are criminal because they are immoral and unethical and this torture is a pretty obvious example. The U.S. is great at judging other nations for immoral activities but we're totally OK with giving our own leaders a pass for 'good intent'.



Plainsman said:


> Oh, yes, and have you changed your mind on ammo control? I really would like to know where you stand since we are in danger now.


Yes I stated before that I had changed my mind on ammo control. In the bill's current version, they go too far by implementing serial numbers on ammo, passing on the cost to users, and trying to jack up the cost of future ammo in doing so. They are intentionally trying to make it more expensive as a punishment, and thus have gotten carried away. I think they may have gone way overboard, in hopes of a "compromise" which will get them the bill passed, but just with fewer restrictions... so net win for them. :******:



Plainsman said:


> Last, do you still think North Dakota is isolated and uninformed and do you think I am foolish for being proud to live here?


You take a broad swipe with this statement Plainsman. I never made such a blanket statement. Isolated is a matter of perspective. North Dakota is isolated in many ways from the pulse of the rest of the country, which in effect does make it uninformed. It gives you a very compartmentalized world, where you don't get to listen to a broad array of opinions. I contrasted living there as compared to other parts of the country, including where I live as having more diversity, a more educated base, and a higher likelihood of residents having a sophisticated advanced education, making our political debates a bit more shall we say indepth out here...

I admire you for living in North Dakota. I am proud to call myself a North Dakotan, and plan on returning _very_ soon. Know of any jobs in Jamestown that might be available in my field? :wink:

You know Plainsman I was also going to mention... it might interest you to know what it is like out here where I live. I think alot of folks have misconceptions. For as much as I play it up, and for as much as I let others get their stereotypical liberal jabs in.. I suppose it was inevitable. However reality is much different. I say this to let you know that I'm not surrounded by liberal hippy Democrats.

I live in eastern King County in Bellevue. My neighbors are by and large are Republicans, have incomes in the top 15% of earners, in my legislative district, we have a Republican US House Representative Dave Reichert who is the former King Country 20 year Sheriff (and the father-in-law of my first manager out here), and I'm out in the far 'burbs of Bellevue, almost in unincorporated King county. We have farms 4 miles up the road, including large horse stables nestled in large stretches of open green pasture. I actually live on top of a mountain (Cougar Mountain), and we have deer, bear and cougars that roam approx. 500 yards from my home.

I say that to give you an idea that just because you think everyone out here is staunchly Dem, and lives in dense urban squalor it is just not so. I do have a ton of liberal hippy type friends, but I have just as many Republicans too.. it is a pretty even mix actually.

So please don't paint me as a liberal eco rabid Dem.  I may play it up to pull your leg but it just isn't so!

:lol:

Have a good weekend.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So please don't paint me as a liberal eco rabid Dem. I may play it up to pull your leg but it just isn't so!


Well with that I will have a good week-end. I enjoyed that post. I didn't agree with all of it, but I was surprised how much I did agree with. I even enjoyed the honest answer about prosecuting Bush officials. Neither you nor I have been in that position and I'm betting were both thankful for that. Tough decisions, but if the prosecute they will simply look vindictive. Especially since I would guess they all knew what was happening.

I can't stay up as late as you younger fellow so later.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Ms McCain is hardly the face of anything, let alone the Republican Party, nor is her dad much as I admire his war record.

Saying "moderate Republican" is like saying "conservative Democrat", a true contradiction in terms for either.

Both parties original platforms are well known and well established. Conservatism is what it is the same as Liberalism is what it is.

If a person isn't willing to support their party's platform, then they should have the good grace to simply quit and either go independent, Libertarian, or join the opposition party.

I think Miss McCain is very disingenuous, so unquestionably she would make a very good liberal mouthpiece.

At any rate, seems to me she's more interested in her 15 minutes of fame and TV exposure than anything else...


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2009)

Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business
Confused about the difference between socialism, Communism, and the politics of huge corporations? This basic "dictionary" may help.

Feudalism: You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream.

Pure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You're both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.

Bureaucratic Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as its regulations say you should need.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it's so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it.

Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

Militarism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

Representative Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

American Democracy: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate." The cows are set free.

Democracy, Democrat-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being so successful. You vote politicians into office who tax your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay the tax. The politicians use the tax money to buy a cow for your neighbor. You feel good. Barbra Streisand sings for you.

Democracy, Republican-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

Indian Democracy: You have two cows. You worship them.

British Democracy: You have two cows. You feed them sheep brains and they go mad. The government gives you compensation for your diseased cows, compensation for your lost income, and a grant not to use your fields for anything else. And tells the public not to worry.

Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Anarchy: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You lay one off, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when she drops dead.

Singaporean Democracy: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.

Hong Kong Capitalism (alias Enron Capitalism):
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute an debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows.
The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Isands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company.
The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad.

Environmentalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

Foreign Policy, American-Style: You have two cows. The government taxes them and uses the money to buy a cow for a poor farmer a country ruled by a dictator. The farmer has no hay to feed the cow and his religion forbids him from eating it. The cow dies. The man dies. The dictator confiscates the dead man's farm and sells it, using the money to purchase US military equipment. The President declares the program a success and announces closer ties with our new ally.

Bureaucracy, American-Style: You have two cows but you have to kill one of them because the government will only give you a license for one of them. The license requires you to sell all your milk to the government, which uses it to make cheese. The government pays lots of money to store the cheese in refrigerated warehouses. When the cheese spoils, the government distributes it to the poor. The poor get sick from the cheese, go to the emergency room, and are turned away because they have no health insurance. The President declares the program a success and reminds us that we have the finest health care system in the world.

American Corporation: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself so you can declare it as a tax loss. Your bosses give you a huge bonus. You inject the cows with drugs and they produce four times the normal amount of milk. Your bosses give you a huge bonus. When the drugs cause one of the cows to drop dead you announce to the press that you have down-sized, reducing expenses by 50 percent. The company stock goes up and your bosses give you a huge bonus. You lay off all your workers and move your production facilities to Mexico. You get a huge bonus. You contribute some of your profit to the President's re-election campaign. The President announces tax cuts for corporations in order to stimulate the economy.

Japanese Corporation: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You teach the cows to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Your cows always get higher test scores than cows in the U.S. or Europe, but they drink a lot of sake.

German Corporation: You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year and are very expensive to repair.

Russian Corporation: You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count your cows and discover you really have five cows! You have more vodka. You count them again and discover you have 42 cows! You stop counting cows and have some more vodka. The Russian Mafia arrives and takes over all your cows. You have more vodka.

Italian Corporation: You have two cows but you can't find them. While searching for them you meet a beautiful woman, take her out to lunch and then make love to her. Life is good.

French Corporation: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want another cow, more vacation and shorter work weeks. The French government announces that it will never agree to your demands. You go to lunch and eat fabulous food and drink wonderful wine. While you are at lunch, the airline pilots and flight controllers join your strike, shutting down all air traffic. The truckers block all the roads and the dock workers block all the ports. By dinner time the French government announces it agrees with all your demands. Life is good.

Political Correctness: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is an outdated symbol of your decadent, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender. They get married and adopt a calf.

Counterculturalism: Wow, dude, there's like . . . these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.

Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm busy this week-end, but Ryan I have to tell you why I liked your post, but why I disagree about moderation. 
First off that last post of yours came across to me as very honest and without partisan bias. It was very good.
My view on Palin which you think is strong your wrong about also. I am still wondering about her, and what angered me is we never got to know her. The media is so bias you can not believe them. Sort of like Obama giving money to GE which owns what MSNBC or something like that. Sure we will get the truth from them. Anyway, the first negative feed back on Palin that I have got was from a friend who's relatives are in Alaska. That was just two days ago. They say she is a bi$#@ch on wheels. Maybe as a manager that's not all bad. I don't know.

I think NDTerminator summed up my feelings on moderation well. However, here is the reason I don't think conservatism is dead. Now, I know you don't like FOX news, but have you ever wondered why they are now in first place?
I can't believe most of the media. Sometimes I have given no credit to your posts because of where they came from. Then Fox news takes first place at the same time many other news outlets are going bankrupt. What that tells me is there are millions of other people who think like me. People who are hungry for the truth. People who want to hear the conservative story. I think all these news pundits who say we have to be more moderate know there is strength in conservatism and they are trying to mislead those people. It's a concerted effort, and it's supported with many things that are just untrue. 
I would rather believe evidence I can see myself than anything anyone tells me. The best news agency in the nation, with the smartest person in the world on staff is worth less than nothing if they are lying to me. Without integrity all other capabilities are worthless.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

52/48 is no landslide. My buddy supported McCain and he didn't vote either because it was done. I am not sure given the way that California voted on their propositions that the margin of victory would have been more. It could have been less. If the media would release real polls and not phonies I think we would all see that right now this country is 50/50.

McCain could catch a lot of independent votes. She looks good, she has a name, she is younger, and if she learns anything from Palin's many mistakes she could be a good candidate but that should be way down the road. If conservatives were to embrace her and she makes her way up the ranks she could be a good candidate at the national level.

The easiest way to get a republican in the white house would be to have a candidate that can be a centrist. Leave conservative legislation for the congress. Obama is going to get a hard lesson on this if all this reconciliation is crap.

Prosecuting anyone in the Bush Administration for military and national security is BS. There are some Bush admin members who should be locked up but not for national security issues. Another example of liberals destroying our country and the democratic party. Protecting the homeland was one of the only things Bush did right. The dems are going to lose a lot of votes in their own ranks let alone the independents. I remember Obama saying during the campaign that he would protect the country at all costs, I guess not.


----------

