Those Pre-Patriot Act, inalienable right taking, lasseiz-faire guys?

Totalitarianism...it can be a bitch.

7/23/2007 10:20:08 PM

This thread is new. Quite new.

7/23/2007 10:22:57 PM

I miss em

7/23/2007 10:30:06 PM

I am one...

7/23/2007 10:37:39 PM

I'm a liberal and I support this thread...

7/23/2007 11:19:52 PM

I am one, more or less (a little more libertarian than the type you're talking about, but close enough).

this thread isn't really news to anyone or insightful, though. I'll do the usual and let it go for a little while to see if any meaningful discussion ensues, but otherwise I'll probably lock it.

7/23/2007 11:33:14 PM

I think those republicans are still around, they were just temporarily blinded by 9/11, and simultaneously got drunk with power to spawn the Neocons. I think most republicans will swing back to reality in the coming years, but the plague of the neocon will be on us for decades to come.

But those old school republicans still are responsible for the current state of things WRT republicans, because most of them got sucked in, and the rest sat back and let things crumble.

7/23/2007 11:42:10 PM

^ welcome to the bullshit of 2-party politics

7/23/2007 11:48:05 PM

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

7/24/2007 12:12:09 AM

7/24/2007 1:01:26 AM

Quote :

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! "

Quote :

"For the past twenty-five years the apostles of the welfare state, some Republicans, some Democrat, have been busy transforming that stern old gentleman with the top hat, the cutaway coat, the red, white, and blue trousers, from a symbol of dignity and freedom and justice for all men, into a national wet nurse, dispensing a cockeyed kind of patent medcine labeled "something for nothing," passing out the soothing syrup and rattles and pacifiers for grateful votes on election day. "

and my favorite:

Quote :

" I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. "

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 1:15 AM. Reason : afds]

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 1:15 AM. Reason : fdfds]

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : asfdasdf]

7/24/2007 1:14:49 AM

Quote :

"I think those republicans are still around, they were just temporarily blinded by 9/11, and simultaneously got drunk with power to spawn the Neocons. I think most republicans will swing back to reality in the coming years, but the plague of the neocon will be on us for decades to come. "

I disagree. If we're talking about the same people (and I group myself into the category in question), we're talking about a totally and fundamentally different breed than the neocons or religious right, which constitute 95% of today's GOP (at least the ones in office).

7/24/2007 1:20:39 AM

The neocons now are the same republicans that were in power during the Clinton era, yet I don't really recall anyone complaining about the republicans not being old-school enough, and the word "neocon" pretty much didn't even exist (i would say it didn't exist, but I don't know this for sure).

7/24/2007 2:10:35 AM

was there ever a time when republicans weren't linked to corrupt church leaders?
i only know the history of politics since i was 15 or so i really don't know much about the time before that.

7/24/2007 6:47:00 AM

was there ever a time when the Democrats weren't linked to corrupt race-baiters? see, it works both ways...

7/24/2007 7:59:02 AM

Durr, of course it works both ways you shitty troll. This is a fucking thread about Republicans. Are you drunk?

7/24/2007 8:53:05 AM

^^^While religious language has been invoked more or less throughout the nation's history, what you know as the religious right didn't begin to really form until the 1960s. The religious right really took off in the late 70s and 80s, with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_majority

This has had caused internal struggles in both politics and Protestant demoninations (particularly the Southern Baptist Convention).

7/24/2007 9:18:10 AM

Quote :

"moron: The neocons now are the same republicans that were in power during the Clinton era, yet I don't really recall anyone complaining about the republicans not being old-school enough, and the word "neocon" pretty much didn't even exist (i would say it didn't exist, but I don't know this for sure)."

Pretty much. It's just another one of those labels that make it easy for people who don't know what they're talking about to try and sound quasi-intelligent.

7/24/2007 10:14:53 AM

I think pseudo was the word you were looking for while trying to sound intelligent about others trying to sound intelligent.

7/24/2007 10:17:27 AM

Honestly, the neocons have been around since Nixon.

7/24/2007 10:22:36 AM

Wrong, neoconservatism is a cohesive movement and line of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Read up on it. Many legitimate neoconservative thinkers have jumped ship, believing Bush has betrayed them (most notably Francis Fukayama) but some still stay behind.

But recently Neocon has just become a generic tag for all PNAC/Bush activities, which is probably not wholly accurate.

edit: They've been around since before nixon actually. They just began forming more cohesively during the 70's as a reaction to the New Left movement.

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ^^^]

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 10:24:25 AM

Quote :

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

damn thats deep...almost makes me want to be an oldschool republican

7/24/2007 12:21:01 PM

Before the first Republican debate, msnbc.com had a good piece that talked about the Republicans and what it actually meant to be a conservative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18442009

Quote :

""Conservative" as it has applied to the Republican Party has evolved over the last 40+ years. From Barry Goldwater's definition in the 1960s that emphasized a limited federal government to Ronald Reagan's that picked up on Goldwater and added national security and faith elements to the definition. Newt Gingrich, in 1994, gave the word "conservative" an aggressive, sharper elbow, while George W. Bush added a pro-government appeal. As the previous paragraph indicates, the word "conservative" has been diluted. The definition is much fuzzier today than it was 20 years ago - let alone 40. About the only string that connects Goldwater to Bush when it comes to the word "conservative" is taxes. And this is the problem facing the party as it heads into 2008. Just what is "conservative" right now? Is Pres. Bush's push for spreading democracy around the world conservative? Probably not to Goldwater conservatives or even some early Reagan conservatives (who don't like nation-building), but that is conservative to folks like Gingrich and Bush. Is using government to legislate faith conservative? Again, to a Goldwater and a Reagan, probably not. Even to a Gingrich that might not be what he believes is conservative. But to a Bush it is. A few years ago the Pew foundation found in its typology survey of voters that there was now something called "pro-government conservatives." Sounds like an oxymoron to some old-school conservatives, but these are folks who believe the government should be active in pushing various social conservative agenda items, for instance. And this brings us to Thursday's debate, which is not just a fight among personalities but a fight to define the word "conservative." Rudy Giuliani is offering himself up as a combination of Reagan and Gingrich, vowing to be pro-government (i.e. competency) but somewhat libertarian on certain social issues. John McCain is more of a throwback to his Arizona idol, Goldwater, who seems to preach small government (he rails against spending more than any other major candidate right now). But there's a Gingrich streak in him in that believes government should be active legislatively (something un-Reagan). And then there's Romney, who basically is styling himself more on Bush's definition of conservative than any other of our four examples. He's trying to be the candidate that can somehow tie himself to all four definers of the word "conservative." Obviously, personality will have a lot to do with which brand of conservatism ends up selling to base Republicans in 2008. Frankly, personality may have more to do with it than any one conservative stance. But that's the rub with these Republicans running for president. None of them represent the perfect electable conservative. That's why there is so much enthusiasm for Fred Thompson. But the enthusiasm doesn't stem from the fact that he is more Reagan vs. Goldwater or more Gingrich vs. Bush. It's that he's someone who seems to be comfortable trying to be ALL things to ALL conservatives. At least that's how he's being portrayed and compared to the current three frontrunners (Romney, Giuliani and McCain). He does seem to be a combination of all four strains of the conservative movement. Let's see what happens when he becomes an actual candidate. But I digress. "

I never realized how much Barry Goldwater looks like Nelson Rockefeller before.

I think a lot of the problems with "new school Republicans", especially for small-l libertarians like myself, and most likely Barry Goldwater if he were still alive, is that George W. Bush's vision of what the Republican Party stands for is completely incompatible with our philosophy on the role of government. There's a bit of irony when Ron Paul is asked twice in the same debate "are you running for President in the wrong party?" I know he's lambasted by most, but Paul is as close to Barry Goldwater as you will get today. Barry Goldwater Jr. speaks about that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4&mode=user&search

Like the author said, the only thing that connects Goldwater to G.W. is taxes. Well, there's a lot more to life and policy than that.

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 12:26:26 PM

Quote :

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Good quote. In fact, great quote.
Too bad libertarians are closer to that than republicans these days.
Why did republicans ever get so close to bible-thumpers?
IMO, that's one of their greatest mistakes....

7/24/2007 12:31:06 PM

Wait, what do y'all mean by old school?

Like, that trickle down joke and shit?

7/24/2007 12:55:26 PM

Everyone remebers that Barry Goldwater lost the election by a horrible margin?

He was a fluke, the republican base had no use for him, they wanted "big-government defend us from our ills" Nixon. Back then the libertarian party was part of the republican party, and one year they used a loophole in the changing primary process to get their guy nominated: Barry Goldwater. Many republicans at the time disliked him and didn't even bother voting for him.

7/24/2007 12:55:29 PM

Quote :

"Why did republicans ever get so close to bible-thumpers?"

ummm, because they like winning elections?

7/24/2007 1:27:36 PM

Quote :

"^ welcome to the bullshit of 2-party politics"

7/24/2007 1:35:13 PM

Quote :

"I'll do the usual and let it go for a little while to see if any meaningful discussion ensues, but otherwise I'll probably lock it."

oh really, so thats the litmus? in that case let me point you here: http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=486442&page=3

7/24/2007 1:50:49 PM