What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
218 Comments
- badqat, on 02/16/2009, -8/+83FTA - Apart from his down-the-line opposition to abortion rights, Perkins says, Bush was “not a consistent conservative.”
lol...other than in terms of religion, I can't think of a single thing that defined W. as a "conservative". - kemp34, on 02/16/2009, -14/+85So long as they keep ignoring the large and growing constitutional-libertarian wing of their party, and the American populace as a whole, they will continue to flutter aimlessly, losing more and more relevance until they collapse in utter destruction.
- badqat, on 02/16/2009, -5/+52Agreed - those of us whom value personal liberties and respect the constitution have no place in the modern GOP.
- kemp34, on 02/16/2009, -5/+46He was a fake in the whole "religious" thing too.
- michaelpinto, on 02/16/2009, -1/+41You'll never re-invent a party so long as you're looking at the past — the Republicans trying to find the next Reagan would be like Democrats trying to find "the next JFK": It's sounds like a worthy goal, but those Presidents were a result of a time and a place that's gone (i.e. the good old days of the Cold War).
- emmettgolf, on 02/16/2009, -4/+41The people who are trying to reorganize the Republican Party are still the same neocons that brought it down. They don't stop to try to understand the meaning of the word Republican and will be controlled by the very same people who control Obama. They will come out with some kind of poof and try to herd the population from the left to the right to get change when the left and the right are the same thing.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -10/+44FTA: "Two weeks after the November election, Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based conservative group, announced it was cutting a fifth of its workforce, or more than 200 employees. The move followed a staff reduction of nearly 50 in September. Now, Perkins says, the Family Research Council may soon follow suit because its revenues are down 15 percent from the previous year."
Gee, now isn't that a shame. ;-) - inactive, on 02/16/2009, -13/+47https://www.lp.org/membership
Welcomes all conservatives, please check your religious legislation at the door. We will also accept people who thought they where liberal because they hate Bush. - shadus, on 02/16/2009, -1/+31The GOP needs to boot the religious wackos and go back to being a "conservative party", fiscal, constitutional, etc. The social conservationism the GOP has been engaged in during recent years is detrimental to the constitution and the reason many people have quit voting for them. I really don't want an evangelical agenda shoved down my throat any more than I want a Buddhist agenda, Catholic agenda, or any other religious agenda, I'm a big boy I can make my own choices about what is morally right and wrong, as long as it doesn't break the law it shouldn't be mandated by legislation.
There presently is no difference between the republicans and democrats, neither party is liberal or conservative they're both moderates who only differ in who they sell you out to. - Lawofnations, on 02/16/2009, -6/+36The GOP shot themselves in the foot back in St.Paul in 9/08 by nominating a candidate that was designed to lose. That's why the best candidate had his own Rally across the river to start a grassroots movement to restore our Constitutional Republic. How many Julieani supporters did you see waving signs to passerby in the dead of winter?
- shupy, on 02/16/2009, -3/+32Who the hell do you think is going to pay for the Iraq war?
- kemp34, on 02/16/2009, -5/+33Scattering yourself all over the globe while stirring up multiple hornets' nests and taking strides towards bankrupting the country is not a good defense strategy.
As a libertarian-leaning, constitutional republican, I find belligerent imperial fascists like yourself to be the real danger to our national security. - thecoolestguy, on 02/16/2009, -14/+41When are they going to realize that following the message of Constitutional governance, meanwhile elimination of the socialist policies and international interventionism, is the only way to save America and the party?
- roho76, on 02/16/2009, -5/+32Regroup??? WTF? All they want to do is continue the same policies with a black in charge. "Hey everybody we got a black guy too."
Even though I'm a Republican I hope they get their asses kicked for a while because of their stupidity. They still refuse to listen to reason. - muckemuck, on 02/16/2009, -1/+26and being a cowboy. He's moving back to the 'burbs now that he's out of office.
- signul, on 02/16/2009, -4/+29It often seems like Republicans are Republicans first and Americans second
- EMFK, on 02/16/2009, -9/+31At the moment, I want to know who the hell is going to pay for this stimulus package?
Neither party right now is really hearing the angers and frustrations of America. As usual, the more things change----the more it stays the same. - dalittle, on 02/16/2009, -3/+24GOP needs to make a concerted effort to dump social conservatives. They have done nothing to better the country and have decimated the fiscal responsibility the GOP once touted. It is not the Federal Government's place to try and force people to live in some narrow christian fundamentalist view that most of these same supporters have no ability to live to. When the GOP becomes the party of small fiscally responsible government and not wacko religious nutjobs the people will return to it.
- Njon, on 02/16/2009, -5/+24Bush is a psuedo-Christian. What kind of evangelical would say this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dp4t-UMbnc
Your daily dose of heresy, brought to you by the Theologian-in-Chief. - MakanGuru, on 02/16/2009, -10/+29Note to the GOP. MOVE ON AND STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!
Regan is dead, REALLY dead. The US has had 2 tries of his trickle down economics and in all 3 tries ended up with a HUGE deficit at the end of it. - inactive, on 02/16/2009, -2/+20If you go start "preemptive" wars in the name of religious ideology your foreign policy will always fail.
If your answer to every economic problem is to lower taxes on businesses and accelerate deregulation your economic policy will always fail.
If you stifle accurate biology, physics and mathematics in education to teach revisionist history in support of a mythical prophet or God your culture will never learn from past mistakes and will ultimately fail entirely.
These are the lessons of the United States Republican Party. - JigoroKano, on 02/16/2009, -1/+17Unfortunately I can't completely disagree with you. All the staunch "conservative" Republicans I know have giant erections for American imperialism.
I hear them complain about the cost of the stimulus bill and ask them about the cost of the war they supported. Their reply is that war is necessary, but the stimulus isn't.
I fear that big government Republicans are here to stay. - TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -1/+16The article discusses that vote in the first two paragraphs, then discusses the nature of the fissures.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -3/+18NL,
I didn't see Ron Paul's name anywhere in the article. So, how is it that you determined that the author has anything to do with Rep. Paul?
It seems you think anyone who criticizes the party musts be biased, or just wrong. You should keep telling yourself that the party is fine and that it's only unhappy Ron Paul supporters writing and publicly commenting on it, but it seems the election results are saying something different. - muckemuck, on 02/16/2009, -3/+18You apparently didn't go to your district or state GOP convention this year and are only going on what you've heard from the GOP or the media? ... because the GOP sure spent a LOT of time and energy trying to prevent dissension if there was none.
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -4/+18Bush Limbaugh promises free oxy for everyone!
- pintomp3, on 02/16/2009, -8/+22The GOP reached out to fringe groups which worked for a long time but now they are a hodgepodge of religious fundamentalists, racists, war-mongers, and trickle-down economists.
- kcdstudios, on 02/16/2009, -1/+15God... if only there was only someone out there that was able to rally and connect to the youth, ya know? An educated man with a history of fiscal conservatism to really bring back the ideals of the GOP. Maybe an army veteran that is a doctor, ya know? Perhaps he would have a history of bringing children into the world, and perhaps the ability to demonstrate longevity and commitment through a long marriage.
Of course in today's day and age he would need to have a very tech savvy campaign and the ability to raise millions of dollars and waves of dedicated supporters instantly.
But in truth even if a person like that existed the current GOP would rather have the neocons destroy their party for the sake of profit and power. Way too much of both involved.
I weep for the GOP. it is dead. We need a Teddy Roosevelt. I sick of pandering to the uneducated voters. If the GOP wants to save itself it needs to become academic, rediscover its roots, read up on Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire. An actual minimalistic government staying out of the affairs of people at home and abroad. - muckemuck, on 02/16/2009, -0/+14Spend some time researching how many states McCain lost that he would have won if he had the votes that went to the Libertarian or Constitution party. ..
I'll give you a head start. Look at how handily Bush won NC and then compare it with how McCain did. - InSearchOfTruth, on 02/16/2009, -2/+15social conservatism is not conservatism.
- dtfinch, on 02/16/2009, -3/+16I want to see fiscal conservatives ally with social liberals. I hate having to choose between economic freedom and personal freedom. I want both.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -1/+14NL,
I'll try one more time. I understand this is complicated for you.
"His name is not mentioned for the reason I stated."
Allow me to explain Digg. I didn't write the article. Rather, I submitted someone else's work. You see, Diggers submit articles. 99.99% of the time, these articles are written by someone other than the Digg submitter. Again, that is the case here. The author is Shawn Zeller of the CQ staff. Does that clarify it for you? I know it's hard, but try to think about it and maybe you'll grasp the concept.
As for the title, Mr. Zeller did not mention Ron Paul in his article. That's why the title he chose for his article does not include Ron Paul's name. Surely it would be odd for Mr. Zeller to use Ron Paul's name in the title of an article that has nothing to do with Ron Paul, right? Are you following?
So, when I submitted Mr. Zeller's article, I did not include Ron Paul's name either, as the article is not about Ron Paul. You still with me? You see, since the article is not about Ron Paul, neither my title nor Mr. Zeller's includes his name.
Let me try to make it easier. Let's say I were a Miami Dolphins fan. If I submitted an article about the winner of this year's Super Bowl, I wouldn't put the Dolphins' name in the title, as they didn't play. Does that make it easy enough for you to understand?
I hope this explanation helps you to understand this difficult issue. - cadmiumpaint, on 02/16/2009, -3/+16The GOP is fu*ked and will probabally wander aimlessly without a true identity for the next decade or so. They'll continue down the same path being a regional, rural party with mostly uneducated followers, and a few "old money" rich guys at the top, who are looking to the past for inspiration. The same people who brought the party down are the same ones trying to reinvent it...yeah good luck with that. The "christian" zealots are never going to leave your party unless they have their own. Libertarianism will attract some conservatives, but they're really too extreme in their views to become a true mainstream party.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -2/+15NL,
What is so hard for you to understand? The ARTICLE is not about Ron Paul. As the ARTICLE is not about Paul, why would my submit be about Ron Paul?!?!? You gave no reasons for the article to not mention Ron Paul. You do understand Digg submits link to articles, don't you?
If you disagree, show me where IN THE ARTICLE you see support for Ron Paul. - fiatjustitia, on 02/16/2009, -10/+22@GOP
Please just go away. No one really cares anymore. No, really, we just don't. - muckemuck, on 02/16/2009, -0/+12They finally voted with Ron Paul. heh..
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -2/+14I guess NL wants a new rule. If the submitter supported Ron Paul, the title of every submission must state so, even if the article has nothing to do with Ron Paul. I guess NL thinks the Digg TOS prevents Ron Paul supporters from being here at all.
- gregeland, on 02/16/2009, -2/+13How about no party system? That would be a refreshing jog back to reality.
- muckemuck, on 02/16/2009, -11/+22Ask Pelosi.. she signed the check for the lat two years. Ask Obama, since every estimate I've seen recently showed that more will be spent on Obama's watch than was spent during Bush's terms (because we'll be there for 8 years and we weren't fighting in Iraq for all 8 years of Bush).
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -3/+14Where in the article is Ron Paul's name mentioned? Where are his ideals even referenced? If I wanted to add his name, where would it even go? The article isn't about Ron Paul.
I guess you see conspiracies everywhere. Maybe you should stop the blind burying and read the articles. - hendzen, on 02/16/2009, -0/+11yeah... do you honestly think the digg coders are dumb enough to let people embed iframes into comments?
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -6/+17It's not a "the party is fractured post," it's a "the party is fractured ARTICLE."
You should read the article. - JigoroKano, on 02/16/2009, -3/+14You know, there are Christians who aren't strict evangelicals... in fact that would include most Christians.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -3/+14NL,
You said the article was "Ron Paul sour grapes." Well, I didn't write the article, so your reply is irrelevant.
Wow - brstilson, on 02/16/2009, -0/+11"The crap vote the libertarians got this year proved that."
The only reason the libertarians got a crap vote is because the major news media doesn't pay any attention to them. Look at Ross Perot. He had media exposure and was actually leading in the polls at one point in 1992. He very well could have been the president if he hadn't sabotaged his own campaign. Media exposure matters. People want to vote for the winner, so if they don't feel like the Libertarians can win, they won't vote for them, and they won't win.
One thing's for sure, the Republicans can't win elections if they're going to pander to the racist, bigoted, uneducated, religious fanatics in the deep south to the exclusion of everybody else. That became quite apparent in November. The number of red states are shrinking every year. There are plenty of moderate Republicans that are tired of the religious sectarianism going on in the party and are sick of their party trying to merge religion and politics. Most Republicans now are getting up there in years and eventually they're going to die off. If the current Republican leadership continues to ignore and alienate the next generation, who are less religious and more educated, then they'll cease being a serious player in American politics within a few decades.
The libertarians exist because there is no major political party that truly believes in small government in ALL areas of life. The Democrats want limited intervention in personal lives, but massive government intervention in the economy. The Republicans want massive government intervention in our personal lives, but almost no intervention in the economy. So where does that leave people who don't want massive intervention in EITHER? Nowhere except the wasteland of paleo-conservative minor parties who all basically have the same platform. - deathandtaverns, on 02/16/2009, -1/+11I don't think the constitutional-libertarian wing of the GOP is as big as you think it is. It's easy to overestimate your numbers when you're on digg and much of the rest of the internet, because libertarians tend to be quite vocal and educated. Then again millions of people go to church on a weekly basis. If I remember correctly it's about a third of the country, and each week that large group of people is told to vote on abortion and abortion alone.
I can assure you that those people don't want drug law reform, or to end american imperialism. They care mostly about one thing and that is the culture war.
I guess my point is that libertarians are quite a minority. Hey after reading digg I thought Ron Paul stood a small chance too, but unfortunately the gop stands a lot more to lose from upsetting the christians than they do by upsetting the libertarians. - inactive, on 02/16/2009, -2/+12The ones who want the "next Reagan" seem to forget that Reagan INCREASED the size of an already too ***** big obese government, whether or not they want to admit it. But I find myself having to admit it FOR them quite a bit, lately, so I'd encourage them to get into tune with fiscal & historical reality, so I don't need to keep CONSTANTLY schooling them on the basics of what happened in the '80s.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/16/2009, -1/+10It was intentional. I prefer Julie Annie myself.
- kemp34, on 02/16/2009, -2/+11LMAO that it even comes to this.
Engineer, I give you credit to going to such extremes to explain UTTER BASICS. Man, some people are just dense as a freaking board.
LOL! - Dumbledorito, on 02/16/2009, -2/+10I don't see much difference between him and the rest of the GOP. I don't mean that they're all as off the reservation as Bush was, but they allowed him to do it without any resistance, regardless of what they claim their principles to be.
Gingrich brought in the "win at any cost" mantra that let the Republican Party become what it is today, which is about as far from its actual platform as you can get without buying new letterhead. -
Show 51 - 100 of 226 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is