Executive order: UNION labor for federal construction

[Nick1911]

Republicans sometimes nominate RINO centrists.  That sucks, no doubt about it.  But Republicans also sometimes nominate strong conservatives.  In fact, the Republicans are the only party that ever nominates conservatives. Destroying the Republican Party will ensure that no conservative will ever be in the running for high office.

RINOs often support watered down socialism.  Again, that sucks.  But the altnerative is to vote in Democrats who supports concentrated and aggressive socialism.  You could abstain or vote thirf party, but that accomplishes the same thing.

The problem is that the continuation of this cycle leads to socialism.  It's lose-lose.

Say the political atmosphere is measured numerically.  0 is total capitalist freedom.  100 is socialism.  We currently stand at 60.  When the democrats get power, we have a +5.  When the republicans get power, we have 0 most the time (RINO doesn't change the status quo), and a -5 25% of the time (true conservatives).  Stretch that cycle out 100 years, and we have socialism.  It happens slower then if only the Democrats were around, but the end result is the same.

Argument occurs about if it is better to vote third party or vote lesser of two evils.  I contend that it doesn't matter, both roads lead to the same destination.

If you think Bush and the RINOs are bad, just wait and see what happens in the next two years.  We can survive guys like Bush and live to fight another day.  We cannot survive guys like Obama for long.  There is value to using RINOs as place holders to keep Democrats out of power.

This demonstrates the point.  RINO's might not push the status quo towards socialism.  Occasionally, a republican might push towards conservatism.  But that's not enough - the 'place holders' only delay the inevitable push to the left.

[FTA84]

In reply to Nick1911,

I think that the only way to combat this is a constant reminder of why socialism is doesn't work.  That was something we had up until 1989 or so.  Now, people revisit the idea, because on the surface it sounds great.  Why don't we all just do our best and share the rewards!  No one will have to starve blah blah blah.  Problem is, one needs constant reminders of the end result.

[MicroBalrog]

RINO's might not push the status quo towards socialism. .

But quite often, they do.

[Perd Hapley]

You could abstain or vote thirf party,

Thirf Party, all the way!   

[roo_ster]

Thirf Party, all the way!   

Is it open to those who are not serfs with a lisp?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This demonstrates the point.  RINO's might not push the status quo towards socialism.  Occasionally, a republican might push towards conservatism.  But that's not enough - the 'place holders' only delay the inevitable push to the left.

Delay is good.  Time makes lots of things possible.  It allows us to work on other things in the meantime.  

Progress is being made.  There are now charter schools and maybe soon there'll be school vouchers.  We have Heller vs DC.  The left no longer has a stranglehold on the media.  

Stuff like this takes decades to achieve, and maybe decades longer to pay off.  It is a slow process.  Obviously it won't work if we don't buy ourselves enough time to let it work.

Hell, if nothing else time buys us the ability to live out our lives in peace.   Even if it's inevitable that we all turn socialist in the end, I would definitely prefer to live out my life and get my children raised before we get there.  The longer the American experiment lasts, the better it will be for everyone.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Thirf Party, all the way!   

You know that typo in my post was your fault, right?

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, I'm the thcapegoat.     [Hangth head.]

[Balog]

Republicans sometimes nominate RINO centrists.  That sucks, no doubt about it.  But Republicans also sometimes nominate strong conservatives.  In fact, the Republicans are the only party that ever nominates conservatives. Destroying the Republican Party will ensure that no conservative will ever be in the running for high office.

RINOs often support watered down socialism.  Again, that sucks.  But the altnerative is to vote in Democrats who supports concentrated and aggressive socialism.  You could abstain or vote thirf party, but that accomplishes the same thing.

If you think Bush and the RINOs are bad, just wait and see what happens in the next two years.  We can survive guys like Bush and live to fight another day.  We cannot survive guys like Obama for long.  There is value to using RINOs as place holders to keep Democrats out of power.

The reason 3rd parties aren't viable is because the pubbies still are. But that depends on how you define "destroy."  We need to get rid of the socialists, of both parties. Demonstrate to the leadership that "watered down Democrat" is not an acceptable flavor of Republican. Think of it like New Coke. If we reject the crap long and loud enough, it'll go back to the way it should be.

The problem with RINO place-holders is that it destroys R's faster than losing would. It demonstrates to party leadership that "moderate" ie %90 the same as Democrats is the way to win elections. It rewards bad behaviour. And as they go more and more left they lose market share, so we end up with more D's overall and the R's that we have are functionally equivalent to their opponents.

[KD5NRH]

Yeah, I'm the thcapegoat.     [Hangth head.]

So, now it matches your wrist?   

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not GAY!  That'th inTHANE!!

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'm not GAY!  That'th inTHANE!!

Your just FABULOUS! Right? 

[Perd Hapley]

That'th fAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbulouth to you!

[RevDisk]

This demonstrates the point.  RINO's might not push the status quo towards socialism.  Occasionally, a republican might push towards conservatism.  But that's not enough - the 'place holders' only delay the inevitable push to the left.

Uhm.  Guess you missed the amount of dollars spent and programs pushed during the Republican lock during the last administration?  Dude, they were aiming for a lot higher than +5 and made it.  During the last administration, aside from a few wedge issues, they did not push very much towards conservatism.

[taurusowner]

I guess it depends on how likely you think it is that the Liberals will sit idly and wait for us to clean up our party.  The "losing is the best lesson" rhetoric sounds nice, and it does feel good to want to clean up our party by throwing the RINOs out.  But while we're tossing our own members out, what exactly do you think the Libs are going to do in the mean time?  The real question you should ask your self is "will a new Conservative Republican party even have a chance to do anything one the Liberals have gotten through passing their laws while we sort out our mess?"  I'm not sure it will.  We may be successful in a few year at rebuilding out party.  We may come through this in 2010 or 2012 and have a much more Conservative party to enter the race with.  But will they have a chance?  While we're bickering about RINOs vs true Conservatives, the Libs are going to be spending every day they can pushing as much far Left legislation through as they can.  Example: we may finally have a GOP that is totally against firearm registration in 2012, only to find that a registration act got passed in 2011 and the deed is done.  We may have a GOP in 2012 that would have been totally against the Fairness Doctrine, only to find out that most talk radio shows are out of business because the Fairness Doctrine got passed in 2010.  While we rethink our strategy, the Dems are going to go for the killing strike.  Be sure of it.  How do we rebuild our party, while not giving the field to the Left to do with what they will for a few years?  By the time we get done fixing our party, the Libs can do more than enough damage to make the whole point moot.  To use the fireman/arsonist analogy, we can either half heartedly try to delay the burning of the building with the firemen we have, or spend the time assembling the best team of firemen there is, only to have them show up late to some smoldering ruins.

[MicroBalrog]

Example: we may finally have a GOP that is totally against firearm registration in 2012, only to find that a registration act got passed in 2011 and the deed is done.

So repeal it?

[/quote]  We may have a GOP in 2012 that would have been totally against the Fairness Doctrine, only to find out that most talk radio shows are out of business because the Fairness Doctrine got passed in 2010.[/quote]

Remember the Fairness Doctrine was once in force in the US, and it got repealed.

[taurusowner]

You don't honestly think that once the Feds get a database of firearms owners that they would actually destroy it if the law was repealed do you?  Registration is irreversible.  As is socialized health care.

[RevDisk]

You don't honestly think that once the Feds get a database of firearms owners that they would actually destroy it if the law was repealed do you?  Registration is irreversible.  As is socialized health care.

If repealed and they kept the data, it'd only take one person to rat them out.  Then the lawsuits would flow.  Registration is not irreversible, though I'd prefer it not ever exist whatsoever.  If you want an example in progress, it's looking like Canada is stepping towards removing their registration requirements.  We'll see.

Ragnar, nothing in this world is permanent except death and taxes.  Everything else is negotiable to some extent.  Look at CCW reforms nation wide.  How many states had CCW ten or twenty years ago compared to today?

[MicroBalrog]

You don't honestly think that once the Feds get a database of firearms owners that they would actually destroy it if the law was repealed do you? 

What use would such a database be if they stopped updating it?

[taurusowner]

What use would such a database be if they stopped updating it?

Even if out of date, it would be one hell of a stepping stool when the door to door checks start.

[RevDisk]

Even if out of date, it would be one hell of a stepping stool when the door to door checks start.

You're not familiar with the regular amount of accuracy in government databases, are you?   

[Manedwolf]

You're not familiar with the regular amount of accuracy in government databases, are you?   

Greetings, Ms. ResDisk! Please provide us with an update of when you had moved from Estonia, as that is what our records show. Use form 45365656:56547 from an office that will not answer its phone, or click on the broken web link to receive an error.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Are there any instances where a government had something like a firearm registry database and then gave it up?

[MicroBalrog]

Are there any instances where a government had something like a firearm registry database and then gave it up?

Wasn't there a time when they required a special form with every ammunition purchase?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wasn't there a time when they required a special form with every ammunition purchase?

Prior to '86 I believe people were required to give a name and address to purchase ammo.  I am not aware of any central registry or databased that tracked all ammo purchases or identified all ammo purchasers.  I could be wrong, though.