If Obama has not managed to become dictator for life by 2016, Hillary Clinton will run and be elected to the presidency in 2016. There are several reasons why she will win, no matter who runs against her.

1. In order to get her to drop out of the 08 Democrat prinnary, Obama and his owners promised to appoint her Secretary of State, and GUARANTEED her the presidency in 2016.

2. A coalition of labor unionists, negros, bureaucrats, dumb people, and muslims will v**e en mass for her.

3. The democrats control massive v***r r**********n fraud, massive v****g fraud, massive absentee v****g fraud, massive v**e tabulating fraud, and some v**e tabulating by a foreign owned company with contracts to count v**es in a number of AMERICAN v****g places. A company controlled by Soros.


If Obama is dictator by 2016, she will be given a position of power or she will be k**led.

I just read the article, it was ok. Typical Huffpost, Bush was a economic disaster because of the wars. Obama could have kept his promise and pulled out of the war within the first three years in office, he had control of everything and could not stop fooling around being the first playa in da house. The Catholics have taken a beating because of the way they handled the pediphile priests, but I don't see how it ruined the fatherly role or figure. Most Americans still beleive in a heterosexual relationship regardless of the so called mainstream. I also don't beleive conservatives are attempting to be some grand father image, there are many republican women in the public view. Clever coined names as rightwinger or teabaggers is simply childish name calling, quite frankly my educated democrat friends are imbarrassed by the antics of the media and the current state of affairs in politics. The democrats through this childish behavior have devided our nation more in the last 3 years than I can ever recall. The modern republicans need a good front guy or gal for direction agreed, but the GOP is not going anywhere.

more complicated topic than one might expect. Historically conservative in original American politics was Federalist, Whig, GOP for federal govt. action = Dem today. GOP today for more limited federal govt. action corresponds to Jeffersonian original "liberal" side in American politics, and the re-set of Jeffersonianism with more radical Jacksonian "populism" corresponds to the present Tea Party phenomenon. Note that "progressive" originally was a split from the Republican Party in the 1910s.

Thus in a sense original conservative and liberal historical party lines reversed, perhaps during the Great Depression, though the idea of reversal wasn't apparent to me until "Reaganism." Thus perhaps our political division should be thought of in terms of pro govt. activism vs. more limited action rather than conserv-lib. However, current usage is liberal/conservative reference for pro/limited govt. positions. 7

2 additional historical qualifications: Jeffersonians 1800-28 in office more or less Federalist in practice despite original sharp partisanship--compare to degrees of consensus and bipartisanship and compromise expected by general public vs. RINO contention today by "extremists" insisting on absolute limitation line, which in turn relates to Jacksonian 1828 re-set of govt. limitation considered so "extreme" by opponents that they referred to Jackson as King Andrew and formed an opposition party they named Whig after the Brit party opposing monarchial rule--thus perhaps possibility there is a tendency toward what is considered by other side as absolutism or "extremism" on the limited govt. side in our politics. At same time by 1930s extreme govt. action toward equal common interest (extreme form of socialism--Communism) became a left wing extremism phenomenon (although Marx thought that would mean fading away of govt. totally--never could understand how he figured that--ha). Lots of confusing contradictions in terms in politics and in political history and in political theory (as opposed to practice and results). Apology--too long

The right and the left did reverse years ago and it began due to the new social services FDR created.
I had just read about some of the causes of the republican's and democrats flip'- flop'n It was actually an interesting read. The major change occurred during Roosevelt's reign.

It started with the "social" programs, FDR began in order to get us out of the depression.
The capitalists from the beginning didn't like being taxed and having the money go to the needy. The Republicans have always been a party of big business, but after FDR they started to switch and they were known for the party of small government.

We know in reality that's just not true. The GOP is the party that goes with whatever works for them the best.
We know that, as the government has become more regulatory with big business/corporations and are very anti government, on the other hand if they receive bail outs and tax breaks they are pro government.
But no matter what, they don't like giving their money away, and that is how they see it and I don't believe we will ever change their minds on that point of view.

Understanding the politics of America's Right.

Title: Understanding the Politics of America's Political Right.

Purpose: To discuss and understand Republicans, conservatives, and right wing extremists, their values, motives, beliefs, and emotions.

Participant are from a variety of political points of view and interests.

Participation guide lines:

Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Keep it intelligent. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. And please read the article in its entirety before commenting. Note: Manager reserves the right to remove any post at any time.

Bo,
I would say there could be some of both in the Republican party. But, the ones the United States citizens have to fear in this promised "total t***sformation" are the PROGRESSIVES.

There are progressives in both parties, with the higher percentage in the Democratic party and the Executive branch.
The progressives are the people who are the preliminary step to a strong central federal government with a "ruling" executive branch. If you look carefully you can see the steps being implemented one by one. (with people like you helping by denying that it is happening).

Once the t***sformation is complete you can call it anything you wish, but the main characteristic will be dependency on the government and the ruling class in order to survive. (and we will all be poor; but EQUALLY poor ).
1oldgeezer