Which side of the fence?

[Blacksheep]

I read this on Greta Wire today and think it is worth sharing.

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

[fuhr52]

There is a lot of truth to this. The left is constantly forcing their ideology on the rest of us. Now they are making their way into the conservative ranks calling themselves Republicans.

[Rayb]

That is so true. These folks are all looking to the Nanny State to take care of them and are completely intolerant. Europe has proven that what they seek is unsustainable, yet they will not stop until we stop them or we collapse financially. The worst part is that in case of a collapse then they will turn to the streets to demand even more and blame everyone but themselves.

[fstroupe]

There is a lot of truth to this. The left is constantly forcing their ideology on the rest of us. Now they are making their way into the conservative ranks calling themselves Republicans.

Actually they have been doing that for quite some time. Hmmmm....how long has John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Spector, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, John Warner, been in the Senate?

[mappow]

Actually they have been doing that for quite some time. Hmmmm....how long has John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Spector, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, John Warner, been in the Senate?

Almost as long as Strom was in for. Talk about a waste of the last 20 years.

[AMLKing]

Maybe need to add one:

A Republican believes in free speech for all.
A Democrat believes in free speech, unless you disagree with them.

[6shootercarry]

Maybe need to add one:

A Republican believes in free speech for all.
A Democrat believes in free speech, unless you disagree with them.

. BOOM!!! CLANG!!!!

Hit the gong!!!

[Tucker's Mom]

Maybe need to add one:

A Republican believes in free speech for all.
A Democrat believes in free speech, unless you disagree with them.

Sounds like my household.... but wait! my husband was a democrap...maybe he still have to get used to that fact that he is now an independent...

[fstroupe]

Just keep in mind that Republican does not necessarily mean conservative, either for elected politicians or for voters. "Mainstream" or "Washington" Republicans fall far to the left of those considered "conservative".

Barry Goldwater was rejected outright by the party as a radical, yet his views and beliefs would be considered mainstream Republican today. Ronald Regan was not universally loved by the party, a significant number of Washington Republicans considered him an outsider and usurper. Newt Gingrich, the leader of the "Republican Revolution", was extremely unpopular among Senate Republicans excepting the 1994 "freshman class" and the handful of very conservative senators. This was clearly shown by the sour grapes heard when he became a "top tier" candidate earlier in the campaign. (yes, I know all about the charges that Newt is actually a progressive, but his message has always been that of conservatism, anything to the contrary needs to be discussed in its own thread)

Traditionally, the estimate has been that the party consists of 1/3 people whose views are far enough to the right to be considered "conservatives". Most of the remaining 2/3, at least in Washington, have great disdain for the other 1/3, especially now with the tea party influence. (I estimate that due to the tea parties and "new media", the number of conservative voters is currently much more than 1/3)

Though in 2012, most pundits would tell you that most of the party is conservative, knowing that for any of the "mainstream" candidates or their supporters (Romney, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, etc) to be taken seriously have to be considered "conservatives".

For anyone not into conservative politics, yes, I know that this is confusing. It is intended to be, because a Republican candidate MUST at least give the appearance of being conservative to get elected. Nixon, Bush 41, and "W", were not conservative. They were elected because they gave the appearance of being conservative

Nixon wasn't much less liberal than LBJ, but he put on a good show. If Watergate hadn't happened he probably would have gone down in history as a great president.

Bush 41 rode in on the coattails of Ronald Regan, who knew what Bush was about, but could not say. (he had said all that was necessary during the 1980 campaign, but of course that had all been forgotten eight years later)

George W. Bush appeared out of nowhere with name recognition and a BS story about "compassionate conservatism". (which worked because the liberals had always been successful at branding conservatism as "mean-sprited") The rather large number of candidates who were mostly unknown (including Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, John Kasich, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, and others), or known but not taken seriously (Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, Elizabeth Dole), made it easy for Bush to take the prize, since people were sick of Bill Clinton and terrified of Al Gore. The Washington Republicans immediately liked Bush's message and pledged their support for him so fast that it made my head spin. Though he ended up being a little too conservative for their tastes. (not to say that he was very conservative)

Personally I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primaries, who along with Pat Buchanan, were the only real conservatives in the bunch. I did like Pat though, and would have had no problem supporting him if Keyes had not been on the ballot. (Pat is not a "free trader" which make many people doubt his conservatism)

As far as "radically progressive" Democrats vs "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats vs "moderate" Democrats, the number is currently irrelevant, as the party leadership is currently somewhere between "progressive" and "radically progressive", with the moderates having no power whatsoever. The "liberal" voter side of the party, which includes those ranging from "liberal" to outright socialist has traditionally been considered about 1/3 of the party, and I don't see any reason to think that it has significantly increased.

[BluesStringer]

Maybe need to add one:

A Republican believes in free speech for all.
A Democrat believes in free speech, unless you disagree with them.

This may be difficult to accept as not being directed at this poster personally, but it is not intended as such.

My belief is that the gist of the above post is the reason that this country is doomed. Although fstroupe is correct in everything he says about Nixon, Bush 41 and W, we don't have to go back 40 years to indict the leftists and/or globalists (they are not always one in the same) of the Republican Party. We don't even have to go back a year, and the bill I'm thinking of is free-speech specific to boot. We only have to go back to February of 2012 to find the Republicans supporting unanimously in the Senate and with only two Republicans out of three total "Nay" votes in the House, the worst assault on free speech rights in the history of the United States that I can think of, H.R. 347 - Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.
(If you prefer a .pdf, go here.)

HR 347 insulates the President, or anyone he, or the Secret Service on their own volition, designates by simple "memorandum" from being exposed to opposition speech of any kind. Counter to the meme put forward in the title of the bill, the President or his designees can convert any building or venue into a "federal building or grounds" for the duration of the President's presence at such locations.

Judge Napolitano gives a good synopsis of the destructive nature of this travesty to the 1st Amendment in the following video:



Just going back to December of '11 we find the current NDAA being signed into law with 190 Republicans voting "Yea" and only 43 voting "Nay." Just last week an amendment to that bill that would have repealed the indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil provisions, was defeated, again with majority Republican support.

(For an objective review of what's wrong with the NDAA, go here. That was written before the recently-defeated amendment.)

My entire federal legislative delegation is Republican. Mo Brooks is my Representative, and Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby are my Senators. All of them voted for all of the above-mentioned travesties to individual liberty.

Until such time as loyal Republicans remove the scales from their eyes about their elected government officials being legitimately described as "conservative," we can never start moving this country towards constitutional restoration. My observation is that that means we can never start moving this country towards constitutional restoration, because loyalty to party is more important than facing the truth that the Republican Party is as much an enemy of the Constitution as are the Democrats. The above post is just one among thousands of indicators of that truth that I see on a regular and ongoing basis. The destruction of the Constitution has been steadily plodding forward with the support and active participation from whatever the conservative party was called at a given time in our history, since shortly after the Constitution was ratified. We've got over 200 years of apathy, willful blindness and acquiescence to turn around, and counting on the Republicans to have any part in achieving that is a fool's errand.

Blues