Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 657 Comments
Christ may be the most acceptable high-profile Red to non-Reds left. I know the ultras are after his blood, but IMHO its a bad play. He's got National potential to the majority of Americans, not just the true believers.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2009 @ 16:27
Whether a Red can win in 2012 is going to depend on Obama. If he comes up with nothing after his 1st term, then the race is open. If he has a good 3 years, he might be a lock. But whether a serious try for the White House happens in 2012 or 2016, the GOP needs to make sure they have a viable candidate to field, and that means someone who isn't just appealing to the Pure Crimson Brigade.
Depending on the where and when, I'm certainly game. A bit concerned for my personal safety . . . but game.
(I keed, I keed)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2009 @ 23:11
sorry . . . forgot to add (and you may want to put on some kind of helmet because this might just blow your mind) I disagree with alot of the stuff posted on liberal blogs as well.
Inconcievable!!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2009 @ 15:27
@Moosey:
I'm afraid being here . . . so I should go to a community that shares my views? If I was afraid of you, why be here in the first place?
What makes you think I DON'T read and post on liberal blogs as well? Is it because reading different ideas is vewy scaaaawy to you? I understand you're one of those absolutists, that can't stand even to hear, let alone consider, anything that doesn't 100% agree with what you already thought . . . but since I did make it through puberty without too much scarring I perfer to see things outside of my own little bubble.
I'm not scared by other people ideas. I think its healthy to se what different people thing, and to engage with them. Clearly, you are, and I'm sorry your sense of self-worth is so pathetically small you feel like the only smart thing to do is sit in an echo chamber for some positive reinforcement.
Ideas don't scare me. Philosophies don't scare me. Being wrong doesn't scare me. Conservatives don't scare me. You certainly don't scare me.
Clowns? They scare me.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2009 @ 15:26
@Sshiell:
Gracias. I try to learn one new thing every day . . . and now I can enjoy devoting the rest of the day to letting my mind turn to tapioca.
@Allen:
You're also right. A brief bit of research reveals the 23rd was apparently loaded with heavy Dem areas before a re-district in the early 90s, which if I'm reading this data correctly moved the heavy blue areas into the 21st.I guess the "no blue in a century" is based on extremely creative interpretation of what constitutes the 23rd, but the fact seems to be that there have been dems elected to represent the 23rd fairly recently, and no ammount of creative interpretation changes that fact.
Thanks to you both.
@MooseH:
Their boy? You're funny.
Lecturing for same-sex marriage -- I have? Actually, I've posted repeated on this site stating my opposition to it. It was hidden in a code, so I'll give you the cypher: look at the words I type. Start at the left, then read them sequentially going right.
Obama's against SS marriage -- Whether he is or isn't . . . goodie for him. I try to decide if I support someone based on the totality of their views. It is a little more difficult, since it requires actually thinking, but I'm funny like that.
It's nimrods like you that embarass the Republican party.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.11.2009 @ 19:39
@Allen:
If I'm wrong correct me, but I was under the impression that the 23rd hadn't elected a Democrat for that seat in well over a century.
Is the balance 3/1 overall for the State? That sounds reasonable. Have other districts elected Dems? Sure. But has the 23rd voted that seat Blue in the past? I've seen numbers bandied about in the 140+ years range, and I haven't seen anything challenging that figure.
Like I said, if they have straighten me out. I'm not knowledgeable about historical House representation in the district (or pretty much anywhere else, for that matter). I've seen the "over a century" claim repeatedly, from multiple sources, and with nobody challenging it it seemed credible. I'm always open to learning new things.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.11.2009 @ 17:25
@Allen:
"I don’t think this race has any big national implications."
It certainly shouldn't, that's for sure. The Blues had the House enyways, so even though the balance of power tips incrementally toward the Dems, it doesn't really change anything (nationally) at the end of the day.
Sadly (for the GOP) though, I think it will. As Rick quoted Armey saying, this is "proof" that the "pure" conservatives have enough power to try and wrestle the conductor for control of the train . . . and they are eager for that. The fact that, after wrestling control they then crashed the train isn't relevant to them. They aren't interested in getting the train to a destination, they just want the conductor hat.
Their nominal goal is to bring the GOP back to power. For that, they need to gain votes, and turn blue areas red. NY-23 (their first big public test of their influence) lost voters and lost a reliable seat. I know Rick isn't sure Scoza would have won, but a district that has been GOP for almost 150 years in my mind can be categorized as "reliably red".
If they can't win enough votes in a GOP district, how are they going to flip blue and neutral voters?
The only way this makes sense is a a megloamaniacal power grab. As an honest attempt to win majority control, there just dosen't seem to be credence to it. If it IS a powergrab, then it's going to spread. And that is very, very bad for the GOP.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.11.2009 @ 16:14
@M. Simon:
"I think support of the Constitution is a basic Conservative principle."
Really? Huh . . . I thought it was an American principle.
Does this mean that you believe support of the Constitution is NOT a Democratic principle? That a tenet of the Democratic party is "subvert and destroy the Constitution"?
You can't be serious.
"Government doesn’t solve problems. It either impedes solutions or perpetuates the problem. It is the bureaucratic imperative."
Yeah . . . government sure continued that problem of interstate travel. All our interstate highways would have been built much cheaper and quicker with nothing but private citizens.
Oh! and sewage. Stupid government creating sewage sanitation plants, and mandating that my neighbor doesn't dump raw sewage in my back yard. Stupid government.
I love how you express reverence for the Constitution one post, then decry government the next. The Constitution CREATES THE GOVERNMENT. If you're against the government, then you're against the Constitution. Pick a position and try to at least be consistent.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.11.2009 @ 03:06
@Jimmie:
"No one of any repute — not a blogger, not a talk radio host, not a conservative politician — is asking for (or demanding) complete conservative ideological purity. It is not happening. Give me an example where a RINO is being drummed out for lack of purity as opposed to specific objections to a specific substantial position that runs far afield from basic conservatism."
You're playing language games (I don't think intentionally, but its still happening).
No one is demanding ideological "purity" -- they're just demanding adherence to "basic conservatism". The more you stray from that (only on "specific substantial positions" of course), the more you are marginalized and excluded.
Yeah . . . that's totally different than "ideological purity".
Define basic conservatism. Opposition to gun control? Opposition to gay rights? That's a good one . . . is it a tenet of basic conservatism to oppose gay marriage, or to stay the hell out of it due to respect for individual freedom?
Or is NEITHER a tenet of basic conservatism? Is basic conservatism limited to ecconomic policy?
Given Hoffman's history of observing "basic conservative principles" in politics (zero), what makes him "more" adherent than a GOP soldier that has worked with the party for years? Because he said he's a "Reagan Republican"? What does that even mean?
I'm getting off-point, so let me ask the question this way -- You agree that demanding ideological purity is bad, but expecting GOP candidates to adhere to basic conservative beliefs is good (I agree, by the way).
What is the difference between the two?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.11.2009 @ 00:22
Alright, that was out of form. My apologies, Rick.
What makes you like the crazies is thinking that just because you can see a clear, coherent worldview, you think that your view of the world will magically be mirrored in reality.
Just because attempting to match NY-23 elsewhere is a dumb idea, you think it won't/shouldn't happen. Your worldview makes that an ignorant choice, so of course everybody else must recognize it as ignorant as well. Its obvious, isn't it?
The crazies think being anything other than "I bleed Reagan Red" pure conservative is unacceptable. The GOP must model itself around a Church . . . purging the heretics and preaching ideological purity. This is "right" in their mind. That's obvious, isn't it? Everybody else must beleive the same way.
They know they are right, so they assume everybody else agrees with them. To them, NY-23 is proof that the (vast) majority of Americans agree with them, that the GOP needs to focus on purging and purity. What could possibly make more sense (if that were true) than to march forward from this victory, spreading the Pure Red ideology across the land, seizing control of the GOP by mounting glorious challenges to the entrenched bourgeois? Don your berets and start singing "The Barricades", my brothers! The time of revolution is nigh!
You know you are right, so you assume everybody else agrees with you (don't mount purity revolutions in other jurisdictions). I agree with you that it would be stupid to do so . . . but you think it WON'T happen because that's "loony". The only reason it wouldn't happen elsewhere is if everybody else agrees with you . . . and they don't.
Both you and the loonies are "right" inside your minds. Both of you think that what you believe to be true is going to be reflected in reality . . . and it isn't. That's why you are similar in that you confuse "right" with reality.
Clearer?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.11.2009 @ 22:04
