I Posed This Question to a Conservative Message Board

[4 High]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I continuously hope the republican party will return to the days of reagan when they had a backbone and did what was right.

10% chance conservatives do what I want them to do
0% chance democrats do what I want them to do

Its really about simple. I am fed up with both political parties. But when push comes to shove, I tend to vote republican because i feel there is a CHANCE they will do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only this were true. Please do some research on some Southern Democrats im sure youll find you agree with them Fiscally. Now if you vote republican due to abortion and church and state, obviously you will never vote Democrat. However is Fiscal Conservatism is your main thing look into Mark Warner, Mike Easley, Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad. Fiscal Conservatism is what comes first to these guys. You really dont see this with Republicans at all, and yet here are Democrats with it.

[[censored]]

self interest

[JimBob2232]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I continuously hope the republican party will return to the days of reagan when they had a backbone and did what was right.

10% chance conservatives do what I want them to do
0% chance democrats do what I want them to do

Its really about simple. I am fed up with both political parties. But when push comes to shove, I tend to vote republican because i feel there is a CHANCE they will do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only this were true. Please do some research on some Southern Democrats im sure youll find you agree with them Fiscally. Now if you vote republican due to abortion and church and state, obviously you will never vote Democrat. However is Fiscal Conservatism is your main thing look into Mark Warner, Mike Easley, Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad. Fiscal Conservatism is what comes first to these guys. You really dont see this with Republicans at all, and yet here are Democrats with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in Virginia, so I am well familiar with Southern Democrats, especially Mark Warner. Honestly, I would consider voting for Warner in a presidential election. However, the Warner wing of the democratic party is not the mainstream wing of the party. There is a huge difference between Warner and Hillary, Pelosi, Daschle, Reid, Dean, Gore, Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

I made a generalization earlier. And I stick by that if we are talking about the leaders of the democratic party vs. the leadership of the republican party. Once we get in the middle, with the Warners and McCains of the world, things become a little less black and white.

There are things I disagree with Mark Warner on. But I can respect him, and the country would be well served with him as the democratic candidate in 08. Honest debate could be had on real issues. Unfortunatly one of 2 things will occur.
1) He tries to go to the extreme left of the party for political gain.
2) He wont be taken seriously because he does not agree with the leftist mainstream.

Same reason McCain didnt win the republican nomiantion for 2000.

As bad as Bush has been, give me the option of voting for Kerry or Gore over him, and I would vote for Bush again.

[4 High]

I really dont buy the whole radical left pwns the party BS. If that was the case wouldnt Dean have won the nomination? Truth be told, Kerry and Dean arent even that Uber Liberal, altho the press and republicans like to paint them as such. Dean ran an extremely tight, Fiscally sound Govt in VT, one of the best in the nation. He was socially liberal, but id say almost as if not as Fiscally Conservative as Warner. His anti war stance made alot of people paint him as crazy Uber Liberal.

Gore wasnt even Uber liberal. He was always a somewhat moderate senator with liberal views on global warming. I dont think much has changed there. From what i can see Democrats havent nominated a truly Liberal candidate since Dukakis, and i dont think they will start again now. The only true liberal who is likely to run in 08 is Feingold and i dont think hes electable as a president.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
All of you that are voting Republican say it is because it is the moral thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
According to whom? Can you support this silly statement?

[ QUOTE ]
The Republicans have run the deficit up to unprecented levels

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress controls the purse strings and deficit spending. A president can act as a brake to slow spending but ultimate spending power lies with congress. Bush43 has been terrible with regard to stopping run away spending. The fact is both Dems and Repubs are responsible for the deficit. The only people that aren't responsible are FISCAL conservatives and 99% of fiscal conservatives are republicans. Unfortunately there are not enough fiscal conservatives.
***BTW, the last time the congress showed spending restraint was under Newt Gingrich. Clinton falsely took credit for Newt's iron grip on congressional spending...

[ QUOTE ]
hey have appointed some conservative judges and at least pay "lip service" to morality (while some of them are involved in immoral things)

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example to support your claims? You can make up any claim you want but it is 100% LAZY and irresponsible not to cite evidence to support your claim....

[ QUOTE ]
All of you cite the judiciary as a primary motive to vote Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]
According to whom? Where is your evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
How do you reconcile your desire for conservative judges with the fact that you are ripping off your children and grandchildren by supporting this fiscally reprehensible government?

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy, I suport conservative Repubs and not 'moderate' Repubs like McCain, Bush, Warner, Lindsey Gramm who spend like drunken sailors.... I am aware of no Dems that are fiscally conservative..... And don't cite Clinton when Newt Gingrich and the 1994 congress which gave us our best congress in a 100 years...

[Mempho]

1) I was posting this to a moral conservative board and I am not asking people hre.

2) Is it any question that Bush 43 has appointed some conservatives to the judiciary? I didn't even think that was in dispute so I didn'w bother looking it up/

3) Once again, this was posed to another audience, not 2+2, one I had already conversed with.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
When push comes to shove, I tend to vote republican because i feel there is a CHANCE they will do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the set of the assumptions you make:

1. A and B have different agendas, in theory.
2. A and B end up doing the same thing, in practice.
3. You disagree with what A and B end up doing.
4. You prefer Truth over Lies.
5. You hold out some hope (you say there's a "CHANCE") that A will start putting in practice what A promises.

Therefore, you choose A.

Notice that if A and B change theoretical positions tomorrow (it doesn't matter to which direction), then you would know this, with a reasonable degree of confidence: B will follow through on its change of position more probably than A will follow through on its own change of position.

Essentially, then, you have the following set of choices:

Choose A --> You will get probably lies + event X
Choose B --> You will get probably truth + event X

Event X is what you despise in the practices of both A and B. But since event X is the same in both choices, you really have no control over X and your choice should be based purely on the assumption (preference) number 4 above. (I.e. that you prefer Truth over Lies.)

This is an important concept in Heuristics, and it is routinely violated by people.

Mickey Brausch

[4 High]

[ QUOTE ]

Easy, I suport conservative Repubs and not 'moderate' Repubs like McCain, Bush, Warner, Lindsey Gramm who spend like drunken sailors.... I am aware of no Dems that are fiscally conservative..... And don't cite Clinton when Newt Gingrich and the 1994 congress which gave us our best congress in a 100 years...

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see my posts.

Reference Howard Dean, Mike Easley, Joe Manchin, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson etc. and their fiscal records.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When push comes to shove, I tend to vote republican because i feel there is a CHANCE they will do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the set of the assumptions you make:

1. A and B have different agendas, in theory.
2. A and B end up doing the same thing, in practice.
3. You disagree with what A and B end up doing.
4. You prefer Truth over Lies.
5. You hold out some hope (you say there's a "CHANCE") that A will start putting in practice what A promises.

Therefore, you choose A.

Notice that if A and B change theoretical positions tomorrow (it doesn't matter to which direction), then you would know this, with a reasonable degree of confidence: B will follow through on its change of position more probably than A will follow through on its own change of position.

Essentially, then, you have the following set of choices:

Choose A --> You will get probably lies + event X
Choose B --> You will get probably truth + event X

Event X is what you despise in the practices of both A and B. But since event X is the same in both choices, you really have no control over X and your choice should be based purely on the assumption (preference) number 4 above. (I.e. that you prefer Truth over Lies.)

This is an important concept in Heuristics, and it is routinely violated by people.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

That sir, is a very nice post.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, then, you have the following set of choices:

Choose A --> You will get probably lies + event X
Choose B --> You will get probably truth + event X

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analysis has neglected one thing: *given his assumptions* (and preferences), event X is the *worst* case if A is chosen, but the *best* case if B is chosen.