Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    29 Jan '13 11:37
    This fine article sums up the GOP's woe's. Today's republican party has become too rigid, and too exclusive. It's doubtful that Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, or Eisenhower would be welcomed under today's GOP tent.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-turned-back-reagan-lincoln-073400872.html
  2. 29 Jan '13 17:08
    Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
  3. 30 Jan '13 04:12
    Na, they just want to skip town before it all hits the fan.
  4. 30 Jan '13 04:47
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
    Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
  5. 30 Jan '13 04:49
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
    Can they save themselves and find another Romney?
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jan '13 13:51
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
    Chris Christie, probably.
  7. 30 Jan '13 16:38
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
    Anybody who believes that should read the stated Republican Party positions on the issues.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm
  8. 30 Jan '13 17:36
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
    I'd say that Romney fits the north east model. I'd say George Bush fits the model. Compassionate conservative, let the rich keep their money but increase spending. Appoint judges that will support leftist social positions while supporting the rich's right to keep their money.
  9. 30 Jan '13 21:45
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I'd say that Romney fits the north east model. I'd say George Bush fits the model. Compassionate conservative, let the rich keep their money but increase spending. Appoint judges that will support leftist social positions while supporting the rich's right to keep their money.
    I don't understand this 'model.' I'm older than you I guess and remember Javitts and Rockefeller. Principled republican politicians. Romney does not qualify to my mind. Neither does Bush. Christie is at least interesting. Lugar was one of the best and they threw him out.
    The republican party needs a brain transplant.
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Jan '13 22:09
    Originally posted by bill718
    This fine article sums up the GOP's woe's. Today's republican party has become too rigid, and too exclusive. It's doubtful that Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, or Eisenhower would be welcomed under today's GOP tent.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-turned-back-reagan-lincoln-073400872.html
    It's very rich indeed to scold Republicans for being radical when we have a President who unapologetically and unabashedly espoused the most liberal, collectivist policy agenda in America's history in his inauguration address. It's true that Todd Akin, Sandy, and Chris Christie probably Romney the election, and also true that the Republican Party has to reinvent itself. But to propose abandoning the principles in our founding documents, the same principles that allowed us to grow into the world's largest economy and a leader in women's rights, technologies, human rights, scholarship, and every other human endeavor in favor of policies that have been proven to destroy societies - just look at Old Europe - is absurd.
  11. 31 Jan '13 00:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
    Launching the US into questionable and unfunded wars along with a woefully underregulated fiancial sector are to blame for our fiscal woes. Bush managed to squander a national surplus and throw us into national debt. Social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, are red herrings and have zero to do with the situation.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    31 Jan '13 00:35
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Launching the US into questionable and unfunded wars along with a woefully underregulated fiancial sector is to blame for our fiscal woes. Bush managed to squander a national surplus and throw us into national debt. Social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, are red herrings and have zero to do with the situation.
    Wow man. So you disagree with EVERY economist in the world except for Jack Krugman? You don't really think this do you? Sometimes people joke, and it's hard to tell.
  13. 31 Jan '13 01:34
    Originally posted by bill718
    This fine article sums up the GOP's woe's. Today's republican party has become too rigid, and too exclusive. It's doubtful that Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, or Eisenhower would be welcomed under today's GOP tent.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-turned-back-reagan-lincoln-073400872.html
    I always giggle a bit when any self identified leftist Democrat like you proudly announces they know what's wrong with the GOP. If you did, you would undoubtedly bottle and sell it to as many Republicans as possible.

    Want to find out what's wrong in the GOP, try listening to the TEA party. Listen to those who didn't vote but stayed home.

    You would be better served to ask why the GOP cleaned the Democrats clock in 2010. Or why Obama only won by a few points, in a few critical swing States.
  14. 31 Jan '13 01:55
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Launching the US into questionable and unfunded wars along with a woefully underregulated fiancial sector are to blame for our fiscal woes. Bush managed to squander a national surplus and throw us into national debt. Social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, are red herrings and have zero to do with the situation.
    There was never a surplus. Never. A budget surplus is a projection over a period of 10 years, that is if everything stays the same, which it never does. There was never any extra cash in the till. There wasn't even a budget surplus left when Bush 43 was inaugurated.

    The national debt, that is real borrowing of real money, has gone up every year including the Clinton years. Deficits/surpluses are plans, whereas debt or excess revenue is actual money.
  15. 31 Jan '13 01:56
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Wow man. So you disagree with EVERY economist in the world except for Jack Krugman? You don't really think this do you? Sometimes people joke, and it's hard to tell.
    Sometimes people cite 'every' economist in the world and its hard to tell that they're joking. What - the wars were paid for! Who knew!. What - the bankers didn't gamble (and lose) us all the way to the brink. Who knew!
    I don't dismiss the baby boomer challenge to the medicare program as nothing, but compared to the fiscal crisis of 2008, most economists that I read think it quite manageable.
    And his first name is Paul.