A More Conservative Republican Party (LOL)

[gunsmith]

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/11/a-more-conservative-republican-party/

With Doug Hoffman having forced Scozzafava out and possibly getting elected today, many people are asking whether the Republicans should now purge moderates from its ranks. I say yes and for two reasons:

1. I don’t like moderates.

2. I like purging in general.

Of course, there’s the problem of what happens to the moderates when we purge them. Will they just go to the Democrats? Since moderate is basically a word the media uses for “liberal,” that’s pretty likely. That’s why instead when we purge people from the Republican Party, we should banish them to the Phantom Zone where its really difficult to vote from. That should be in the joining Republicans agreement: If you’re thrown out for being an annoying moderate, you shall be cast into the Phantom Zone. Frankly, I think Arlen Specter would be happier that way.

So what do we do with our new, even more conservative Republican Party? We adopt new super-conservative tenets! Here are my ideas:

NEW TENETS FOR THE MORE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PARTY

* If you want to propose a tax increase, write about it on your suicide note before blowing your brains out.

* A new, compassionate illegal immigration policy should start with walls of flames on our borders.

* We will not negotiate with terrorists, nor with those who harbor them, nor with those who whine about what we do to terrorists and those who harbor them. It should be noted that “not negotiate” means “shoot in the face.”

* We will not negotiate with those who want to expand government.

* Never again should a useless liberal be president. We must do all we can to put them in their proper place: Doing silly dances while we throw nickels at them.

* Biggest problem facing America: Too many sissies.

That’s just a start. Hopefully the Republicans will adopt these tenets are we might be forced to go to a third party. And you’ll know they’ll just have tenets that are unworkably extreme.

 (19 votes, average: 4.74 out of 5)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm    and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

[Standing Wolf]

That’s just a start.

It's a good start. I doubt those country club Republicrats are going to adopt it, but it's definitely a good start.

[MechAg94]

I guess I would ask:  Moderate on What Issues?  Spending and taxes are the critical issues.  I guess that is what is mentioned above.  Everything else we can likely live with disagreements, IMO.  I have seen/heard people use other issues to define conservative vs moderate before.

Also, "purge" is a nasty word.  Actively find and support a better candidate would be a better way of putting it.  

The other issue is that the Republican don't really have a good reputation on spending right now anyway.  They need to rebuild that.

[Gewehr98]

Yeah, I can't really abide by the term "purge", either.

Evil historical connotation, and all that...

[longeyes]

Purge?

Why not colonic?   

[Perd Hapley]

Also, "purge" is a nasty word.  Actively find and support a better candidate would be a better way of putting it.

Yeah, 'cause the author was clearly going for conciliatory language intended for mass appeal.     You may be taking this a little too seriously. 

[zahc]

That’s just a start.

Good. You know, I remember reading a blurb about someone in south america (I think) who was forcibly removed from office by the military for proposing a salary increase for government officials. See, it's an offense (the real kind with consequences, like the kind that apply to regular people over seemingly everything) to even PROPOSE to raise government pay for that office.

Why don't we have more laws that apply to politicians? Why can't we more easily sue them (or jail them) for enacting unconstitutional laws? It seems like they could propose literally anything....a plan to systematically kill children,  a plan to burn all national forests, a plan to drive our country in debt and ruin it with socialistic spending....and there are no consequences whatsoever. The thought seems to be "oh well, if you don't like it don't vote for it". There's never any consequences for "willful attempt to subvert the constitution". If I somehow got elected to an office, the only limit would be what is politically feasable; there is no legal boundaries. I could just propose a bill to do anything, regardless of how horrible it would be.