Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-12-2012, 07:10 AM   #1
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,310
Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system. If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries. The protection of the ozone, (Reagan), or cap and trade (Bush) were all great Repub. ideas. Now it is all drill baby drill and a strange obsession w/coal.

We're at this site b/c we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him.

hyper-partisan Democrat party? When polls ask people that, they always seem to view the Repubs as more partisan.

Last edited by PaulS; 06-12-2012 at 07:18 AM..
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 07:25 AM   #2
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,415
Quotes are Jeb's, not mine, from your link Scott.

“They got a lot of things done with bipartisan support, but right now it’s just difficult to imagine,” Bush said.

“Context changes; history changes,” he said. “Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, similar to my dad, they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party -- and I don’t -- as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement,” he said. “We’re in a political system in general that is in a very different place right now.”

I take that statement to say two things, yes it is very partisan right now (I assume he means both sides, which I agree with). I also think he thinks that the current tract of the Republican party is not how he or his dad, or Reagan would have defined it...

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 07:32 AM   #3
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Quotes are Jeb's, not mine, from your link Scott.

“They got a lot of things done with bipartisan support, but right now it’s just difficult to imagine,” Bush said.

“Context changes; history changes,” he said. “Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, similar to my dad, they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party -- and I don’t -- as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement,” he said. “We’re in a political system in general that is in a very different place right now.”

I take that statement to say two things, yes it is very partisan right now (I assume he means both sides, which I agree with). I also think he thinks that the current tract of the Republican party is not how he or his dad, or Reagan would have defined it...
his statements are about the current political climate and working within that climate, not about the ability of either to get a nomination...

he said...they would have a hard time IF you define the Republican Party as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground....and he doesn't define it that way....

pretty clear and a far cry from..

Jeb Bush says Reagan would have no place in current GOP


Jeb Bush berates 'hyper-partisan' GOP -


nice try though
scottw is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 07:37 AM   #4
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,415
[QUOTE=scottw;943717]....and he doesn't define it that way....
[QUOTE]

Because the Republican party of today DOES NOT FIT Bush's definition of the party.

nice try though

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 07:43 AM   #5
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;943722][QUOTE=scottw;943717]....and he doesn't define it that way....
Quote:

Because the Republican party of today DOES NOT FIT Bush's definition of the party.

nice try though
are you drunk?...the only time that he mentioned feeling out of step with the party was on immigration and I think he said "somewhat out of step"...he was effusive in praise of Paul Ryan and others....

there is nothing that he said that justifies your statement
scottw is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 07:33 AM   #6
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,415
[QUOTE=PaulS;943710]Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? [QUOTE]

Instead we get this... (First NC, now VA)
Lawmakers avoid buzzwords on climate change bills | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

you can disagree with anthropogenic climate change, I don't, but you are entitled to your opinion on future projections and models... but when countless tide-gauges up and down the east coast have directly MEASURED (i.e. not modeled) sea-level rise over the last century, now they have to call it recurrent flooding... because of.... well of course, sea level rise!

give me a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing break....

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 07:37 AM   #7
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;943719]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

give me a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing break....
you have your own scientific community to thank for the disaster that is climate change/global warming/global cooling/ anthrompogenic whatever


anybody see Al Gore lately???
scottw is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 08:10 AM   #8
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party?

They don't get the attention that the press gives to the "drill baby drill" Republicans, who, by the way, propose doing so in environmentally safe ways. I would hope that environmentalists, Democrat or Republican, would advance their agendas at the State and local level. That would be the most effective, non-argumentative, constitutional way. Where are the constitutionalists in the Democrat party?

Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system.

T. R. was, actually, the first progressive president. He put the bull in the bully pulpit and expanded the power of the executive branch beyond constitutional intention. His purpose, of course as a good progressive, was for the benefit of the American people. The difference between the Constitution and good intention is that the constitutional system of checks and balances and limited powers granted to the central government, if followed as intended, garantees actual "power to the people" and individual freedom. On the other hand, disregarding the constitutional system and its garantees in favor of someone's good intention creates the precedence and pathway to the growth of government by good intention that can and will eventually lead from a soft tyranny to harsher despotism, and to many good intentions along the way that do not turn out as good in consequence as the teeny little original intention. The Federal Gvt. now owns 25% of the land in the U.S. Much of it as national parks preserved "for the people." So what percent of our population has actually gone to the vast Arctic National wildlife Reserve or to the large holdings in Idaho, or even the more popular parks? States that depend on tourism as an important part of their budgets do a better job of advertising and attracting visitors than the Federal Gvt. Alaska could better manage its large land reserves more productively, especially for its citizens, than the Federal Gvt.

If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries. The protection of the ozone, (Reagan), or cap and trade (Bush) were all great Repub. ideas. Now it is all drill baby drill and a strange obsession w/coal.

Again, beside the problem of regulatory agencies such as the EPA not being constitutional in the way they function, is that they eventually go way beyond what they were conceived of to do. And they do so against the will of the people. Not only does the Federal Gvt. own more land than anybody, it regulates the land it doesn't own as if it did. The EPA, under the guise of "protecting the environment," can regulate land owners use of their own land. It has shut down private usage to supposedly preserve species (though thousands of species die or are born constantly). It's most current attempt (that we know of) is to claim ditches alongside of or on private property are waterways and must conform to its regualtory power. When congress (supposedly the will of the people) voted against cap and trade, Obama decided to skirt that will by having the EPA mandate a cap and trade. There is a plethora of examples of regulatory agencies making it difficult or impossible for the people to own their own lives. Keep in mind that if the government has the power to regulate and tax something it virtually owns it. It will have more power over that thing than the individual that has the deed.

We're at this site b/c we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him.

Argument and disagreement described as throwing bricks is an attempt to discredit or squelch that disagreement. The sophistry of getting along for the good of all despite constitutional means is the destruction of that constitution and a path to soft, or, eventually, harsh despotism.

hyper-partisan Democrat party? When polls ask people that, they always seem to view the Repubs as more partisan.
I don't know about these polls, neither of their existence, nor how they are structured and what their biases are. But I don't let polls guide my opinion. How has the Democrat party been less partisan than the Republican?

Last edited by detbuch; 06-12-2012 at 08:23 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 08:27 AM   #9
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system. If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries. The protection of the ozone, (Reagan), or cap and trade (Bush) were all great Repub. ideas. Now it is all drill baby drill and a strange obsession w/coal.

We're at this site b/c we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him.

hyper-partisan Democrat party? When polls ask people that, they always seem to view the Repubs as more partisan.
"Where are the environmentalists in the rep. party? "

They are everywhere. I am one of them. I care deeply about the environment. However, I don't take it to the extreme that I blindly accept whatever Al Gore tells me, especially if he is telling me via text from his private jet.

"Teddy R. would have been laughed at for expanding the national park system. If Nixon today proposed the clean water act or the EPA, he would have been out early in the primaries"

What do you base that on? Can you support those absurd ststements?

Many conservatives happily pay for hunting licenses and fishing licenses. Many conservatives are all for logical protection of our national resources. But the key word is "logical". I don't want liberal fanatics telling me I can't drive an SUV or turn on my air conditioner, because some lunatic claims that my actions threaten a species of algae on a rock somewhere.

Your entire post is an insane rant, a pathetic, desperate attempt to paint my side as a bunch of callous capitalists hell-bent on raping the land. Unfortunately for you, that's nowhere near the truth.

In the 1970's, liberal fanatics got a worldwide ban of spraying DDT, because it was threatening the eagle populations. The theory was that DDT made the eggs so thin that the mother birds crushed them when they sat on them. So the liberals enacted a worldwide ban on spraying DDT.

Here's what liberals missed (they usually miss something key). In Africa, mosquitoes cause malaria. The worldwide ban of DDT caused mosquito populations in Africa to skyrocket, and thousands of Africans died of malaria. Not a great result in my book.

I love eagles, and I went to Alaska once specificaly to photograph eagles. That being said, I would happily break the neck of every eagle on the planet, if that would bring back one African child who died of malaria.

My side has a rational, sypmathetic, empathetic view of the environment. We are all for protecting the environment, but not to the point that it causes genuine human suffering.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 08:30 AM   #10
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
We're at this site b/c we love the outdoors, yet if someone proposes a law to help protect it, he gets bricks thrown at him.
.
You're saying that conservatives resort to anarchy when we don't get our way? That's a good one.

Paul, please tell me what percentage of violent riots you think are led by angry conservatives?

Liberals resort to environmental terrorism, not conservatives.

As usual, you literally could not be more wrong in your statement.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 09:53 AM   #11
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
How has the Democrat party been less partisan than the Republican?
Do the Dem. leaders make idiotic statements like the most imp. thing is to defeat the pres- not the economy, not the war?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
You're saying that conservatives resort to anarchy when we don't get our way? That's a good one. I forgot where I said that- can you point it out? Is that what you think "throwing bricks" means?

Paul, please tell me what percentage of violent riots you think are led by angry conservatives? Where did that idiotic question come from? How about what percentage of teabaggers are racist? Or how about what percentage of pres. death threats are by angry conservates?

Liberals resort to environmental terrorism, not conservatives.You mean taking off the top of mountains in WV?

As usual, you literally could not be more wrong in your statement.
And as usual your wrong and come across as an angry, pathetic, partisan person. I don't rant, you do. Look at all your posts. 99% of them are in the political forum and are usually crying about some percieved action by liberals. Post some more b/c I enjoy seeing the anger which seems to drive you. I could care less if you want to Alaska. Tell us more about your military or church service.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:26 AM   #12
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Do the Dem. leaders make idiotic statements like the most imp. thing is to defeat the pres- not the economy, not the war?



And as usual your wrong and come across as an angry, pathetic, partisan person. I don't rant, you do. Look at all your posts. 99% of them are in the political forum and are usually crying about some percieved action by liberals. Post some more b/c I enjoy seeing the anger which seems to drive you. I could care less if you want to Alaska. Tell us more about your military or church service.
Paul, you said that if someone proposed a clean water act, a conservative would throw a brick at them. That's anarchy. Stop obsessing about the hyper-technical details...the point is, your post painted conservatives as some cartoonish, dastardly capitalist dedicated to raping the land. Sorry, no truth, or very little truth at best, to that.

"Do the Dem. leaders make idiotic statements"

Actually, yes. Just this week, Obama said "the private sector is doing fine". Tell that to the millions of people looking for work in the private sector. Last week, Obama said something "idiotic" about Polish death camps...

You don't admit that Joe Biden (the VP certainly counts as a democratic leader) makes idiotic statements?

How many examples do you want of Democratic leaders making idiotic statements? Conservatives believe that everyone, even Catholics, have the right to practice religion. For that, democrat leaders say that conservatives have waged a "war against women"? Most conservatives believe that public unionized benefits need to be curtailed, because states simply cannot pay for them. For that, democrat leaders claim that conservatives "only care about the rich". Those are idiotic, partisan statements. Finally, when Paul Ryan points out that Medicare is going bankrupt, democratic leaders make a commercial of him pushing an old lady off a cliff. That's not idiotic? Is that the democrat's idea of reaching across the aisle to work with conservatives? That's designed to encourage thoughtful debate?

When people like me say "Obama must be defeated", it's synonymous with saying "the economy needs to be fixed". In our opinion, Obama's agenda is causing serious harm to the economy. You. however, cannot accept the fact that we have reasonable justification to say "Obama must be defeated", you assume that statement must be based on racism.

Paul, you said conservatives would throw a brick if someone proposed a clean water act. I asked you to support that, and all you can do is call me a hate-monger. That's precisely what liberals do when they have backed themselves into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape.

No anger or hate in my posts here. I simply asked you to support your deranged claims.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 06-12-2012 at 10:33 AM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:40 AM   #13
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
PaulS accuses me of hate, and then he posts this...

"How about what percentage of teabaggers are racist?"

He posts this bile, and still has the chutzpah to accuse me of hate.

How long, O' Lord?

Paul, I'll talk about race all day long. Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes. Is it widespread? No. Here's proof...the tea party ideals are exactly what poor blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty. We want as many blacks as possible to be self-supporting and wealthy. If I was racist, I'd be supporting liberal policies at the top of my lungs, policies which have encouraged blacks to become addicted to welfare, and encouraged blacks to have illegitimate kids. That all but guarantees poverty.

You want to see genuine, widespread racism? You won't see it at the Tea Party. Try Rev Wright's church.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:52 AM   #14
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
PaulS accuses me of hate, and then he posts this...

"How about what percentage of teabaggers are racist?"

He posts this bile, and still has the chutzpah to accuse me of hate.
Just responding in kind to your hate. Tell us again how involved you are in your church and what a good guy you are
How long, O' Lord?

Paul, I'll talk about race all day long. Are there racists in the Tea Party? Yes. Is it widespread? No. Sure it is. They had local teabag leaders with signs. Then when the heat got to be too much, everyone got the teabaggers to lay off with the racist signs.
Is that bile also?
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-12-2012, 10:47 AM   #15
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Paul, you said that if someone proposed a clean water act, a conservative would throw a brick at them. That's anarchy. So again I ask is that what you think "throwing bricks" means?Stop obsessing about the hyper-technical details...Coming from someone who constantly posts part of a Dems. statements and crying about it? Seems like your the one "obsessing about details"the point is, your post painted conservatives as some cartoonish, dastardly capitalist dedicated to raping the land where did I say that? I gave you a few example of great environ. acts by past Repub. leaders. Where are the great environmentalist in the Repub. party today? . Sorry, no truth, or very little truth at best, to thatAgain, I've already asked you a few times to show me where I've said something or to clarify exactly what you think a term is b/c you seem to be trying to twist things..

No anger or hate in my posts here. I simply asked you to support your deranged claims.
So what was "deranged"? The statement that if someone proposed the clean water act today, people would throw bricks at them?

I think an unbiased person would looking at both our post history would say your the one with a lot of anger and hate.
PaulS is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com