GOP Purity Test

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Pkgrunner, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Pkgrunner

    Pkgrunner Service Provider

  2. (BC) Hoaxster seems like a possible candidate....:happy-very:
     
  3. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Well, if you take away the GOP's love affair with big business tax cutters, Corperate bribe acceptors, champions of tax loopholers and cheerleaders of tax avoiding overseas account holders, war mongers, foriegn interventioners, foriegn nation builders, bloodthirsty oilers(drill-baby-drill), big Pharma pushers, anti-alternative energizers, carbon emission damage non-believers, wall street de-regulaters, national debt increasers, gay bashers, bigot condoners, Fox news lovers, Palin worshippers, and Linbaugh@Beck Teabagging flocks of mis-informed sheep.....then the whole Republican family would basically be disqualified except maybe for the laughing stock of the Party in the form of a rare breed of a "traditional" Republican Dr Ron Paul might recieve a passing grade.....And your absolutely right, even Ronald Wilson Reagan with his cowboy hat riding on his majestic white horse ontop of his pedestal, wouldn't save the day. He'd be the first to get cut...:laughing:
     
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Guess that explains why all the hot looking babes are conservatives.:happy-very:
     
  5. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Tie, your handlers should cancel your Peoples Magazine subscription pronto...Tooners also....
    BTW, I find it hard pressed to pleasure myself to an Ann Culture spread shot...:happy-very:
     
  6. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    TMI bro, TMI...
     
  7. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    We will bring in Rosie O'Donnell to substitute just for you......!
     
  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Let's see if I can find you something suitable...perhaps a little reno action?

    [​IMG]
     
  9. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Well then I volunteer to give them an impurity test. If they pass the conservatives can have them back. My guess is that Michelle Malkin would fail miserably...or would that be gloriously?
     
  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    that's nasty you guys, I almost heaved last night turkey....

    Try Carrie Prejean, I'd get down and dirty with her, but looks like she beat me to it...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/8-carrie-prejean-sex-tape_n_357488.html

    [​IMG]
     
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    The Anatomy of Blue State Fascism

    As opposed to the Red State variety

    In 1944' the great liberal (19th century kind IMO) icon of John T. Flynn wrote the great anti-New Deal/Anti-Statism work, "As We Go Marching" and in it he posed and answered the question, "What is Fascism?"

    If one were truly honest, one would see no difference at all between republicans and democrats but instead see the same thing just in varying degrees at best with the goal of controlling the power to implement in such a way as to serve their self interests first.

    This ain't the first time I've called this country a Fascist State in the textbook term and I still stand behind those words!
     
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

  14. Pkgrunner

    Pkgrunner Service Provider

    Back in the revolutionary era, this country under the first party system had the Federalist party and the Democratic-Republican party.

    Today, all we have left is essentially a one party system disguised as a two party system. The Republicans are to the far right currently, while the Democrats encompass the right, left and moderate currently.(I say currently, because the Republican side has switched ends of the political spectrum in the past). It appears that we have a two party system, but look at the legislative history of both sides. They both promise one thing then vote the opposite whenever it suits them.
    IMO The Republican side of our one party system has a slight advantage over the Democrat side even though it is a smaller faction and is essentially the same party. As long as the Dems stay divided and the Repubs remain united they have that whole United we Stand Divided you fall thing going on...not to mention that old spread out at the rally to make it appear like there are more of us here trick. It works really well for the brainwashing of...(I mean broadcasting to) the American lemmings...(I mean people)...

    "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." ---- Hermann Goering

    With the Federal Govt. via the FCC in control of the greatest brainwashing tool ever invented (TV)...they can make the people believe they have freedom of choice when all they are really offered is what the ruling class is willing to give them....
    Unfortunately for the politicians, they lost touch with their people , and didn't foresee the internet and the information age coming at them from left field soon enough to make a play and get it under their control. Will politicians repeat history in order to remain in control of the people....

    “Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy”---- Hermann Goering

    Ironic that a good education in the US is not easily accessible; sure community college and state colleges are not too far out of reach for some. But who gets to go to Ivy league schools?


    :peaceful:
     
  15. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    [SIZE=+2]The GOP's suicide pact[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1] By Kathleen Parker
    Sunday, November 29, 2009
    [/SIZE]

    Some people can't stand prosperity, my father used to say. Today, he might be talking about Republicans, who, in the midst of declining support for President Obama's hope-and-change agenda, are considering a "purity" pledge to weed out undesirables from their ever-shrinking party.
    Just when independents and moderates were considering revisiting the GOP tent.
    Just when a near-perfect storm of unpopular Democratic ideas -- from massive health-care reform to terrorist show trials, not to mention global-warming hype -- is coagulating over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Just when the GOP was gaining traction after gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey . . . Republicans perform a rain dance at their own garden party.
    Things were just going too well.
    Thus, some conservative members of the party have come up with a list of principles they want future candidates to agree to or forfeit backing by the Republican National Committee.
    The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist -- a suicide pact, really -- of alleged Republican positions. Anyone hoping to play on Team GOP would have to sign off on eight of the 10 -- through their voting records, public statements or a questionnaire. The test will be put up for consideration before the Republican National Committee when it meets early next year in Hawaii.
    The list apparently evolved in response to the Republican loss in the recent congressional race in Upstate New York, when liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava withdrew from the race under pressure from conservatives and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, who won. Republicans had held that seat for more than a century.
    James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that "the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party."
    Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square.
    It's too bad that "elite" and "nuance" have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as "those people" who are out of touch with "real Americans." And "nuance," the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to "Because I said so, case closed") has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. His flip-floppery on issues became associated with nuance, a.k.a. lack of decisiveness. Ergo, a lack of leadership skills.
    It was superb message manipulation, if you go for that sort of thing. But it was also pandering to America's inner simpleton. Not to defend Kerry, specifically, but heaven forbid anyone should ever consider shades of meaning or new developments and change his mind. As Kerry said during a 2008 Associated Press interview, "Decisiveness wrongly applied can create a lot of pain." This nation was, after all, for slavery before it was against it.
    Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?
    In fact, the 10-point checklist proffered by Bopp and others is the antithesis of conservatism. As Kirk wrote in his own "Ten Conservative Principles," conservatism "possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata . . . conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order."
    Each of Bopp's bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse it in good conscience. Some are so simplistic as to be meaningless. As just one example: "We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges." What does that mean? Do we support all troop surges no matter what other considerations might be taken into account? Do we take nothing else into account? Does disagreement mean one doesn't support victory?
    Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.
    Otherwise, might we bother Mr. Kirk to beam us up?