Using the L-word

[240 is Back]

Theoretically speaking...

What if republicans completely stopped using the word 'liberal' with negative connotations?

I mean, in 2008, we saw two guys who could have beaten Obama - mitt and rudy - destroy their own presidential aspirations by screaming "Lib!" at each other in the Reagan library.  mccain won because they looked like asses and voters preferred dignity over screaming.

It used to be political parties WON ELECTIONS by securing the votes of swing voters.  And believe it or not, many liberals are swing voters.  They may believe we should help the poor, stop warring, etc... but they might be conservatives on economic or religious issues.  And continually, we see GB posters and talk radio hosts alike, doing nothing but demonizing them.

They don't welcome them - they demonize them.  This prevents those who are liberals from changing positions and moving to voting republican.  it happens.  hell, some "religious conservatives" on GB were proud Clinton voters in 92 - and they KNEW his positions on abortion, expanding welfare, delivering an economic stimulus, taxing the rich, etc.  So people do change.


So what do you think?   instead of doing nothing but condeming libs - what if they chose to do nothing but WELCOME LIBS TO THE CONSERVATIVE WAY OF THINKING.... Could it work?

[Dos Equis]

No.

[240 is Back]

No.

Why not? 

What made you move from being a 92 Clinton supporter to a bush/mccain voter?   I know, "Clinton was a moderate!!!" is what people yell, but I disagree.  He promised to nationalize health care.  he promised welfare reform to help more americans.  He promised a stim bill.  he promised and delivered GUN CONTROL for pete's sake.  He was a pot smoking, sax playing, cheatin lib - and you and every other clinton voter knew it.

Clinton ended up BECOMING a moderate because he ended up with 6 years of Repub congress.   So, back to my Q.... If a god-fearing, proud american like yourself can vote for a liberal cheating pothead like Clinton... then move to voting Dole, Bush, mccain....

Can't lib voters who hate the war but dislike Obama on his BS economic policy be welcomed into the party?

[Fury]

I hate all political "-isms".

[240 is Back]

I hate all political "-isms".

But they're a part of the reality.  And if michael Steele is reading this board... I hope he decides to start WELCOMING libs to the party.  Not demonizing and attacking them 24/7.

I think half the reason people defend obama is because they are proud to be a liberal on SOME issues and they're just doggone tired of hearing hateful red-faced people scream "liberals are traitors!"

All of us have SOME lib positions, like it or not.  Most of us are pretty moderate.  If the GOP started being nice to libs, they might get them to abandon their blind defense of obama...

[Dos Equis]

Why not? 

What made you move from being a 92 Clinton supporter to a bush/mccain voter?   I know, "Clinton was a moderate!!!" is what people yell, but I disagree.  He promised to nationalize health care.  he promised welfare reform to help more americans.  He promised a stim bill.  he promised and delivered GUN CONTROL for pete's sake.  He was a pot smoking, sax playing, cheatin lib - and you and every other clinton voter knew it.

Clinton ended up BECOMING a moderate because he ended up with 6 years of Repub congress.   So, back to my Q.... If a god-fearing, proud american like yourself can vote for a liberal cheating pothead like Clinton... then move to voting Dole, Bush, mccain....

Can't lib voters who hate the war but dislike Obama on his BS economic policy be welcomed into the party?

Because your entire premise is wrong.  Romney and Guiliani didn't lose because they called each other a liberal.  What evidence do you have to support that conclusion? 

I didn't "move" at all.  I'm an independent and will vote for whichever candidate I think will do the best job as president, governor, etc., regardless of party.  That's why I considered voting for Obama over McCain.  I approach every election with an open mind.   

What I'm not is a phony baloney "Republican" who does nothing but talk like a liberal lapdog.   

[24KT]

Why not? 

What made you move from being a 92 Clinton supporter to a bush/mccain voter?   I know, "Clinton was a moderate!!!" is what people yell, but I disagree.  He promised to nationalize health care.  he promised welfare reform to help more americans.  He promised a stim bill.  he promised and delivered GUN CONTROL for pete's sake.  He was a pot smoking, sax playing, cheatin lib - and you and every other clinton voter knew it.

Clinton ended up BECOMING a moderate because he ended up with 6 years of Repub congress.   So, back to my Q.... If a god-fearing, proud american like yourself can vote for a liberal cheating pothead like Clinton... then move to voting Dole, Bush, mccain....

Can't lib voters who hate the war but dislike Obama on his BS economic policy be welcomed into the party?

I kind of have to agree with Beach on this. I know the point you're making, ...especially since in my eyes Conservative Prime Minister Harper "sweater boy" is looking better to me each day than Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff, and we don't have the same vilification of voters with differing belief systems this side of our border, ...but here is why I agree with Beach. It's becoming increasingly clear that both parties are controlled by the same puppet masters. There is no way the vilification of the left will cease. It's not what's preventing more Democrats from voting Republicans, ...it's what's keeping the few Republicans left from voting Democrat. The venomous atmosphere needs to be maintained in order to keep people from waking up and realizing who is really screwing them. Once Americans wake up and realize their problems & issues aren't left & right, it's all over for the puppetmasters, so they need to keep the animosities and distractions going so the feeble minded don't figure it out, but continue to behave like crabs in a barrel.

[240 is Back]

What I'm not is a phony baloney "Republican" who does nothing but talk like a liberal lapdog.   

You've been coming at people very aggressively lately dude. 

[Dos Equis]

You've been coming at people very aggressively lately dude. 

What?  lol.  Or not.  I've been laughing all day.   

[Soul Crusher]

You've been coming at people very aggressively lately dude. 

Ha ha.  Beach is one of the most mild mannered posters here. 

As for your thread, no we dont need to be nice and cuddly to libs, we need to defeat them at the polling booth and cure them of their ways. 

240 did you ever see my Michael Savage clip of the mental disorder? 

[Emmortal]

Ha ha.  Beach is one of the most mild mannered posters here. 

As for your thread, no we dont need to be nice and cuddly to libs, we need to defeat them at the polling booth and cure them of their ways. 

240 did you ever see my Michael Savage clip of the mental disorder? 

As if defeating them in the polling booths will actually make any change to this country.

[Soul Crusher]

As if defeating them in the polling booths will actually make any change to this country.

Good point.  I agree with you.  But at least we wouldnt have to look at pelosi or schumer right?

[tonymctones]

You've been coming at people very aggressively lately dude. 

youve been coming at ppl very ignorantly lately dude...

liberal wasnt a bad word in 2008 republican was...guess whats the 4 letter word now???

or did you forget that pendulum thing?

[drkaje]

Labels don't mean a thing, 240.

They're all whores.

I'll agree that hiding behind labels is lazy. It's easier for someone to sum up and dismiss an entire concept with a word than articulate an intelligent response.

Instead of asking people to stop using words try asking what someone means to see if you're both using the same definition. 

[Skip8282]

Instead of asking people to stop using words try asking what someone means to see if you're both using the same definition. 

I prefer this one:

Liberal: (noun) One that believes in "compassion" with everyone else's money.



Just saying...

[BM OUT]

The problem is that liberals of today are not liberals.They are anti American socialists and most times anti-white racists.People like Obama and Pelosi are not liberal,they hate America.Republicans need to call them what they are ,socialists.

I wish the republicans would go to a much more libertarian view on social issues.They need to go back to the constitution on economics and be hands off libertarian on social issues.The problem is that wont happen because too much of the partys supporters are religious fundamenatlists,who are exactly as intrussive on social issues as are democrats only with different issues driving them.So,by inviting libs in,you lose your entire base in the south and midwest.

[Dos Equis]

I prefer this one:

Liberal: (noun) One that believes in "compassion" with everyone else's money.



Just saying...

Ain't that the truth. 

[drkaje]

The problem is that liberals of today are not liberals.They are anti American socialists and most times anti-white racists.People like Obama and Pelosi are not liberal,they hate America.Republicans need to call them what they are ,socialists.

I wish the republicans would go to a much more libertarian view on social issues.They need to go back to the constitution on economics and be hands off libertarian on social issues.The problem is that wont happen because too much of the partys supporters are religious fundamenatlists,who are exactly as intrussive on social issues as are democrats only with different issues driving them.So,by inviting libs in,you lose your entire base in the south and midwest.

Your argument would have some validity if there were any real Republicans left running the show. They've literally become a two issue party who proved themselves to be untrustworthy when in charge by spending a surplus and literally adding another govt. branch with Homeland Security.

[BM OUT]

Your argument would have some validity if there were any real Republicans left running the show. They've literally become a two issue party who proved themselves to be untrustworthy when in charge by spending a surplus and literally adding another govt. branch with Homeland Security.

I agree with you,which is why they are out of power.Of course,we now see what total liberal rule brings so they will soon be back in power.The question is,what will they do with it.My prediction?They will fuck it up as they normally do,which proves one thing.Devided government,where absolutely no legislation is passed is the only hope for the country.

[Soul Crusher]

I agree with you,which is why they are out of power.Of course,we now see what total liberal rule brings so they will soon be back in power.The question is,what will they do with it.My prediction?They will fuck it up as they normally do,which proves one thing.Devided government,where absolutely no legislation is passed is the only hope for the country.

Exactly.  Gridlock is good. 

If we have gridlock, no crap & tax, no VAT, no card check, no more bogus stim bills, etc. 

The GOP sucks, and they do royally!  However, compared to the PROGRESSIVE MARXISTS that are in power now like obama, pelosi, et al, who can honestly say that having the GOP take back congress, even if it results solely in grid lock is a bad thing?   

[drkaje]

I agree with you,which is why they are out of power.Of course,we now see what total liberal rule brings so they will soon be back in power.The question is,what will they do with it.My prediction?They will fuck it up as they normally do,which proves one thing.Devided government,where absolutely no legislation is passed is the only hope for the country.

Preventing Clinton from spending money was a stroke of genius but they also should have passed the social security lock box while the economy was strong.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Why not? 

What made you move from being a 92 Clinton supporter to a bush/mccain voter?

He was born again like Coach probably... Vote the bible!