Conservatives Win While Republicans Lose

Rove is a traitor imho and endangered Valerie Plame he did leak her name

=Rove is a political advisor. He does his job and, in general, he is good at his job. This is why democrats don't like him. If Rove worked for the democrats they would love him and the republicans would hate him. O, the utter and shameless hypocrisy of politics.



BALONEY ..DID YOU NOT KNOW HE WAS INVOLVED WITH POLICY...BALONEY ABOUT DEMOCRATS LOVING THIS GUY ...IN FACT DOUBLE BALONEY ..HOW CYNICAL TO PROMOTE THIS TRAITOR WHO HAS
HURT THIS NATION...I STAND ON WHAT I SAID ..HIS POLITICS MUST BE
REPUDIATED AND SHOWN THE DOOR ..YOUR SPIN AND DILUTION WILL NOT WORK . READ LEE ATWATERS BOOK FOR GOODNESS SAKES MARTIN..ACTUALLY RESEARCH ROVE AND HIS POLITICS OF FEAR AND DIVISION ..HISTORY HAS SHOWN HIS KIND THE DOOR BEFORE.

as well you can stand on your opinion ......"good at his job" is this an admission of the politics of division is good...the politics of fear mongering the antithesis of faith. Me thinks young martin you need to get out more.


It is cynical to blame democrats before they even have 100 days to lead
but fine you can do that based on the past....perhaps I am more hopeful..

I support and thank a Sovereign God who shows mercy to those who need to make a living ..raising the minimum wage federally ..he will get the glory and praise from me.

either way by states or the federal government I stand on my statement

Americans want a raise and the middle class want to grow and thrive again and get out from under all the stress.

It is important to make a faith statement and see the glass half full rather than half empty...and if honest brokers do not listen to the American people then martin I think you have a point but I am willing to give new leadership one hundred days which is tradition in our nation and in fact another faith statement...it is the Christian thing to do.:thumbs:

 

I don't think so. I think my example stands. Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose both in Sports and Politics. Have you ever seen a tie in an election?

Oh, I wholeheartly agree with you there, but I think we at least have checks and balances if this election did nothing else.

Why wait? Start getting together a good 3rd party now. Why think that either party is going to change?

The problem I see with 3rd parties, are we can't even debate and come to a conclusion on basic spiritual things, how can we, as Christians expect to come together and vote as a block for someone good, rather than their label?

I agree that we need less government, but I doubt that will ever happen. Give them an inch and they will take a mile, and it doesn't matter which party is in power.

Jamie

 

The traitors are actually now in charge of Congress. They successfully undermined the foreign policy and war efforts of the US for partisan gain. They are directly responsible for our being too weak to effectively deal with Iran and for Iran's boldness on its nuclear program. They know that Bush doesn't have the political ability to stand against them alone and that the rest of the world's leaders are spineless.

They will become a nuclear power and we'll all be the worse off for it... but I suppose for folks like you it was worth it since the Dems regained power.

Before you even start the blame Bush non-sense, the GOP and Dems alike were very careful and forward thinking about the politics of the Cold War. They, unlike the present day Dems, realized that the foreign threat was the real enemy and not the other party.

If liberal speakers believe what they've said, they think that Bush, conservatives, and fundamental Christians are a greater threat to humanity than Islamic terrorists.

I don't even know what Rove politics you are talking about so I'm not defending him... However, it is the politics of socialistic leftists that must be shown the door... if we are to retain any form of freedom and rights.

Fear and division? What do you call it when libs accuse conservatives of wanting dirty water, to throw old ladies out on the street, prevent people from having medicine, etc?

What do you call the class warfare they constantly try to incite through demagogury like the minimum wage? What exactly are they doing with the "tax the rich" rhetoric? What exactly are they doing when they accuse conservative Christians of hate and "homophobia"?

Rove has by no means monopolized "fear and division" from the Dems.

The politics of "division" are vastly superior to the politics of leftist humanism/socialism that confiscates rights then sells them back to the people in the form of political favors.

People should be afraid when a major political force has so little respect for innocent human life that they refuse to protect the unborn. They should afraid when one party thinks that gov't owns everything and calls tax cuts a spending increase. They should be afraid when one party has absolutely no respect for private property rights. They should be afraid when one party doesn't express realism about an avowed enemy of our country. They should be afraid when one party is all but hostile to the religious expression of the most devoted adherents. I am more hopeful..

That is a perversion not based on one single shred of scripture. In fact, Jesus used a parable that in which an employer paralleled God. Jesus affirmed that employer had a RIGHT to pay according to the agreement he made with the workers... and specifically not according to their demands against his will.

The wholly unAmerican, socialistic class envy/hatred/division rears its deceptive head once again.

The "American people" aren't rightly entitled to the wealth they're using the point of the federal sword to demand of "the rich". Actually they're being duped into supporting the demand more than basing a decision on the real implications of it.

The only reason to give them this chance is the vain hope that they haven't meant a single word they've said on policy issues. The Republican ideals aren't right on everything... but the liberals in charge of the Dems are certainly wrong on almost everything.

 

carpro, I agree with Rush's comment yesterday (haven't heard him in a long time, it was a treat) that 15 freshmen Congressmen aren't going to change the direction of the the Democratic Party or Congress, Pelosi will appoint liberal committee chairman and we will see Democratic liberal policies emerge from Congress. Maybe that's a good thing, that voters will reject that in 2008 and we can get some REAL conservatives in a majority this time, and a real conservative President.

 

In fact... This whole election campaign was based on fear and division by the Dems. They didn't offer a single positive idea. They just cast stones at Bush and Republicans.

You're the one who really needs to take those pink tinted glasses off Aslan.

 

Yes.


]

 

==If he was a democrat they would love him. That is a fact. You can deny it, reject it, call it baloney, or whatever. A fact is a fact. The democrats have had many "less than pure" advisors and leaders in their party. Let's not try to pretend that they have not. Most advisors, btw, are involved in policy to one degree or another.

==I am not defending Rove. I could care less about Rove or any of them. I am stating general facts. Is Rove a honest, good man? Probably not. However neither are many advisors (etc) in either party. They have one agenda: WIN. Most of them will do anything to further that agenda.

==Good at his job is simply accepting the fact that he wins elections, that is what he is hired to do. Like him or not, approve of his methods or not, we must admit he does what he was hired to do.

]

==I am sorry but I did not just fall off of the truck. I have seen democrats in and out of power and, believe me, they are just as crooked as the republicans. Both parties are sold out to special interests. And no, I am not hopeful that a bunch of politicans who are bought and paid for by the two major political parties (whose main goals are power and money) will solve any of our nations problems. I am not hopeful about this.

==The plan you are supporting leaves hard working, full-time, employees in poverty. In other words it changes nothing. You know as well as I do that nobody with bills to pay (rent, etc) can live on $6.15 per hour (or $246.00 before taxes per week, less than $15,000 per year) . Our government, if it is going to regulate pay, must do a better job than this. That is its moral responsibilty before God and before it's people. Both the democrats and the republicans, as well as private employeers, are moral failures in this area. As long as people are willing to accept the status quo things will not get better for these people.

==I don't believe the federal government can (by law) or should (being practical) regulate wages. If this is going to be done it should be done at the state level where local conditions can be taken into consideration.

==A pitful $1.00 per hour raise will not do that (5.15 to 6.15). See above.

==It is time for everyone to be realistic. I don't care about glasses being half full or half empty. We are in a situation where we must be realistic. What is the truth of our situation? Only by being honest about our situation can we hope to change it (as a nation).

==That sounds good but it is a empty hope. These people have a track record that we can look at. Sure there maybe some new faces but, believe me, behind the scenes it is the same old politics at play.

 

It is indeed a sad day when the alternative to the present system is democrats and their policies. This solves nothing.

Having said that, when the American people put your party in the White House for 6 years and Congress for 12, they expect leadership like republicans stand for. They stood for (as they courted Christians) moral values. They stood for a balanced budget. They stood for the number one issue in the Constitution, protecting our nation, that is, our borders. They stood for reforming social security and medicare. They stood for when you fight a war, you fight to win. They stood for bringing back manufacturing jobs to America.

Now, how did they lead? Although for moral values, they failed to pass a law outlawing abortion. Remember, they have both houses of Congress and the White House. Now, the fact that the Supreme Court might have ruled against it is no excuse for not passing a law and forcing a ruling. This is a failure of leadership and a broken promise.

They promised a balanced budget, limited government, and sound spending. The national deficeit is at record highs, government has expanded at mind boggling rates, and the federal government is spending like drunken sailors. This is a failure of leadership and a broken promise.

They promised to protect our borders. More illegal aliens enter our nation each day than ever in history. The issue was never in their hearts. Oh, they do patchwork things to calm the public outcry. Authorize a wall that will never exist, put a few national guard on the border. What a shallow facade. And the very idea of giving a free pass to citizenship. This is a failure of leadership and a broken promise.

They promised to reform social security and medicare, allowing private accounts. It never happened. This is a failure of leadership and a broken promise.

They are the party of winning wars. The execution of the war in Iraq is pathetic, costing unnecessary American lives. If you are going to fight, win it, whatever it takes, and get out. This half effort, miscalcuation of the enemy, trying to please our propped up government, not recognizing we are in the middle of a civil war, is an outrage. Our troops deserved competent leadership. Again, a failure of leadership and a broken promise.

They stood for ethics in government. No more comment needed. A failure of leadershp and a broken promise.

Yes sir, when you pretend to be a conservative and govern like a liberal, you get exactly what you deserve. Why do you think Clinton was elected? Think about Bush 1. Is there a pattern here? Reagan's biggest mistake ( a wonderful President) was picking George baby as his VP. Had he not done that, neither of these people would have been President. Talk about Richard Nixon all you want, these two Bushes are but a shadow of him in ability to govern.

To bad for us, the democrats are the alternative. The republicans made their bed, now lie in it. It is time for two new parties.

 

Thank you Carpro for the kind words. Sometimes taking a stand against both parties is not popular, as the norm seems to be on one side or the other, when that is what is destroying this nation.

 

Then I haven't been popular, and Ken hasn't been popular, and Martin hasn't been popular and a few others haven't been popular...

It's one thing to say things to "take a stand" but how many of you voted for Republican or a Democrat because of parties..

How many of you actually cast a vote for a 3rd party if it was avalaible?

Why aren't more of us supporting the 3rd party canidates?

Don't we know that even if the 3rd party isn't who we 100% want, if we vote for them and give them some power, then the other two parties would realize that they don't have a lock on anything?!? And that might bring the Republicans back in line with where they should be.

We need to send a AWAKE UP call to Washington and it need to be something bigger than swicthing parties by name alone!

Jamie

 

Actually, I voted for an independent for state senate, and he won. There was no third party in the federal election for Congress. I would not be surprised to see a strong third party candidate in 08. Look at the weak choices emerging on both sides. There are enough numbers out there to beat both parties between those who arent registered, those who dont vote, and those who are fed up with both parties. There will not be a conservative on either ticket next time.

 

I don't know why any mention of the difference between the rich and everyone else is dismissed as "The wholly unAmerican, socialistic class envy/hatred/division". Because one has the drive to climb the ladder to the top with all its power, this means he has some special favor with God, and is rewarded by the right to a little heaven on earth while leaving many under him to struggle, as if it were the punishment for their not being so driven? (And as if amassing wealth and power was some goal that God stands behind and favors and thus Christians are to go out of their way to defend). Meanwhile, when the same Conservatives notice prices are high, and it is harder to afford the cost of living, all they seem to do is direct all the blame at the poor; first lazy welfare bums living off of liberal taxation progeams (with the rich as the persecuted victins), and now all the focus has shifted to the southern border. When those same rich then ignore Christian causes, or even promite the opposite (sinful entertainment, etc), this is somehow also blamed on the liberals.

No, looking to the Government to try to make everything right is not the answer. But the Conservatives often perpetuate the very "class war" they decry in many of the statements they make in decrying it! An actual solution might be more reachable if people didn't simply toe the party line of either Right or Left, and its wholesale rhetoric and focus of blame as if it is either all of one or all of the other. Everyone is complaining that their side is being badly treated, but I see a definite direction involving the worst of both sides: conservative fiscally, liberal morally. Each side is getting half of what they want, and unhappy about not getting the other half, and has been pointed out; the liberals speed up the moral decline, slow down the class divide, while the conservatives only slow down the moral decline, and speed up the class divide. Then both sides look to more radical right or left as the "true" conservative or liberal. (I remember 2 years ago how many people were actually pitching for the Constitution Party, as scary as some of the things they were saying were. And conservatives who opposed did so only on the grounds that the votes would end up going to the Democrats. I imagine in 2 years, we will have all the same debates on them vs. the Republicans again).

 

Or in two years, the American people will be so sick of the two parties, they will try something else.

 

No matter what is done concerning the minimum wage it will not help people live better. The only way there will be a genuine increase in wages is to create a labor shortage... which is btw what happens when you give "tax cuts to the rich", aka the investment class.

Please cite even one NT reference that establishes anything remotely like this. A righteous gov't does not own its people or its people's property. Therefore, a righteous government will leave pay regulation to the good will and wisdom of the free individual... or else to the laws of supply and demand.

The gov't has absolutely no moral responsibility or authority for dictating what the terms of an employment privilege contract between two free individuals must be.

No they aren't. That's ridiculous. You even pointed out yourself that no one supports a family on $6.15. Employers generally pay much better than this. Without changes in the minimum wage, wages will approach equillibrium- Jobs will come close to being paid their market value.

Another potential negative effect of the minimum wage is that higher skilled employees will be paid less than they are worth as companies seek to meet their labor budgets in light of forced increases for its lower skilled employees.

As long as people buy into the notion that gov't is a force to "do good" rather than to protect rights and liberties... things will get inevitably and progressively worse.

It should not be done. The net effect on those its lying proponents claim to be helping is either neutral or negative.

One overriding principle can lead us back. Strictly demanding that we be a nation of laws and not men... Which means no one should receive wealth transfers from the gov't among many other things.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing it but thanks to campaign finance regulations the two party system is probably a lock.

It would almost take an idealist or small group of them providing sufficient funding to get a 3rd party off the ground. Ross Perot almost did it but I would suspect that McCain-Feingold and other election finance changes have probably plugged that leak.

 

A better solution, a two party system that does not include the democrats or republicans.

 

It is because liberals use it to void "inalienable rights". Wealth and property belong to those who've earned them. It does not belong to you, me, or anyone we might elect. Stealing is wrong whether done directly or by proxy.

I wouldn't state it that way but effectively "yes". People are entitled to the fruits of their own labors. The classic definition of a slave is one whose labor as a resource belongs to someone else. I don't believe in slavery therefore I don't believe gov't has any right to confiscate earned or inherited wealth at any percentage.

Read the parables and teachings of Christ. He never established any mandate for Christians to force the wealthy to give to the poor. He demanded that we individually give to the poor. He affirmed property rights... even of those who demanded a profit and didn't seem to pay equitably.

I challenged this in one of the other forums. Please show from scripture where what you espouse is affirmed.

Conservatives are statistically more charitable than self described liberal and moderate secularists.

I don't agree with
"conservatives" about immigration. I am for hard working people coming to the US... even when they have darker skin and speak spanish.

Yes. I want lazy bums off of welfare. I want someone who is in need to have to go to someone they'll respect, appreciate, and thank when they get back on their feet. I see no goodness in telling them they are "entitled" to the wealth of another person simply because they aren't willing to work for themselves.

Those same immigrants you allude to do the jobs that those "welfare bums" turn their noses up at... I have direct experience in this very thing.

It isn't. Liberal programs being wrong and evil have no relation to the evil of ignoring Christian charity or support for decadence. They are both wicked inventions of men.

I think it is wholly wrong and untenable for anyone to attempt to use gov't to do this. Liberals however would use the force of gov't to demand acceptance for immorality... and that is where I draw the libertarian line.

 

Nice position! Amen Amen :thumbsup: