A Maryland GOPer criticizes the MD GOP, for good reason

[Statistikhengst]

The Tea Party represents average Americans.

Obama and friends have painted them as extremists. Called them ever despicable name in the book.

When the Tea Party first started out, it may have represented average Americans. I believe the more extreme right-wing have taken over the Tea Party, and your average American does not side with them. In fact, even many Republicans no longer agree with their radical policies.

Shutdown:Americans-don-t-agree-tea-party-beliefs

Liberals/leftists and others that call TP'ers despicable names are no more insolent than right wingers that call Obama despicable names. You will always have the extremes in both sides that go to the gutter to make a point, so to try and claim that one side is worse than the other is dishonest.

Mitt Romney was no Tea Party member....but Obama went to great lengths early on to smear him. I am personally connected to two sitatuations that were grossly misrepresented by Whore Stephanie Cutter in the campaign.

What was more annoying was that Romney let it happen. For some reason he didn't feel compelled to fight back.

No, Obama defined Romney before Romney took the time to define himself, just as Clinton defined Dole, Bush 43 defined Kerry, Bush 41 defined Dukakis...

This is an age-old thing in politics, and has nothing to to with smears.

Plus, the cards were never in Romney's hands to begin with: it is very hard to unseat an incumbent, it has only happened 5 times in the last 116 years, and in four of those five times, it was the Republican who was unseated:

Taft (R) - 1908
Hoover (R) - 1932
Ford (R) - 1976
Carter (D) - 1980
Bush, Sr. (R) - 1992

Unlike other people, I don't think that Romney ran a bad campaign. He ran a solid campaign, but against an incumbent who was decidedly better organized and who was able to bank a hell of a lot of money because he was unopposed in the primaries. In the data wars, the Obama team vastly outstripped the Romney campaign, which meant the identification and contacting of potential voters.

Not only that, composite polling all the way through 2011 and all the way through 2012 showed a very consistent Obama +4 weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly average over Romney in Ohio. In polling averages, Romney was never ahead in Ohio, not even once. That was the major warning sign that should never have been ignored by the Romney team.

I am personally of the opinion that Romney made a bad pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate, but that is just my opinion.

Don't forget, in electoral history, Romney still scored the 2nd highest amount of votes that a Republican ever got, right behind Bush 2004 - but it wasn't enough. Obama's Midwest firewall held and the cuban american vote in Florida swung WILDLY against Romney in Florida, and I mean, wildly. And I bet you know why. Yes, the crazy shit that Romney had to utter in order to get the nomination was exactly the stuff that was his poison pill in the GE.

And paybacks being hell, the Democrat who got his hands on the "47" tape, Jason Carter, Jimmy Carter's grandson, is running for the GA Senate seat, is likely to win the DEM nomination and very likely to pick-up this seat for the DEMS in 2014.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where does the left come up with this junk? Media Matters I expect. Would any republican really care if a state elected democrat criticized the party of no family values?

The website quoted is a RIGHT WING website. The owner of the website, Dave Wissing, is a Republican. The sentiments he writes are from the perspective of a Republican, not from the Left. I recommend you get out of the bubble some and actually read the content of the OP before commenting like this.

Good luck with that…

 

[Listening]

We were talking about the Tea Party, and now you've switched the conversation over to Romney and Obama. I guess after I respond, you'll report me for going off-topic, no? Isn't that your MO?

You and someone else were talking Tea Party. Not me.

Do you always have to dilute your comments with stupid insults at the end ?

But to respond to your off topic comment, it is really funny. Romney lied his ass off, and you give him a pass, but have the audacity to claim that lies define Obama? Your not bias at all, are you?

I gave Romney a pass ? I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying that I had some connection to two things, in particular, that Obama attacked Romney on and he was dead wrong on both counts. His campaign out and out lied.

But the discussion you chose to jump into the middle of was that Obama spent his money early on to define Romney. So you might want to focus on that and not on lecturing people about arguments you make up.

Wasn't Romney the one that never shared his tax returns? Was he afraid we might find him not to honest? Wasn't Romney the one that demeaned the middle class and poor people and called us all "moochers"? If he hadn't been taped he might have fooled everyone into thinking that he really did care for everyone. Apparently you didn't mind that.

Like so many you are outraged about what isn't said. You can continue to get all red-faced about that and draw whatever conclusions your open little mind chooses to draw.

Romney not releasing his tax returns isn't lying so that discussion is over.

Romney got caught on tape saying something that was both wrong and damaging. He paid for it.

So instead of electing him, we elected a world class liar.

This thread is about inclusiveness (just thought I'd point that out).

 

[Listening]

1.) Yes, I like what John Jay says - but it must also be a matter of balance. However, I do not see a direct relation between that and the two resolutions that were brought forth at the Maryland GOP meeting. For the first resolution, if you will, simply indicates that the Maryland GOP should be more inclusive. Now, how you want to define "inclusion" was the point that I was hoping serious Conservatives here would jump on, which you did to a certain point.

I will be even more specific: inclusion, as far as I am concerned, does not mean that everyone must always be welcome. I sure as heck don't want Neo-Nazis or racists or rapists (no, that is not an opening for RW crazies to mention Bill Clinton, forget it, he was NOT a rapist) in the Democratic Party, but people of diverse backgrounds shiould be welcome. Democrats who are more of the corporate type stood shoulder to shoulder with very Left-Wing Democrats in order to elect Pres. Obama twice. And we just saw that the very same type of "Obama coalition" held in the Virginia Gubernatorial and AG races about 3 weeks ago, and that in an off-year and in a state that has a paradigm of putting the opposition party to the White House into the Governor's mansion in VA. And again, a wild Tea Party type like Cuccinelli killed the GOP's chances of maintaining this type of paradigm. Why? Well, imo, party because Cuccinelli is anything but inclusive.

This gets tricky in some ways.

Where I live, the Far Right feels it has been ignored by the mainstream GOP. In time, what has become apparent is that moderate democrats run as republicans because it is the only way they can get elected. I liked the state rep where I lived (and still do) several years ago. She knew me by name and I talked with her, at length, on a number of topics.

I wasn't really all that diligent in my investigations.

Then I started seeing her yard signs in the same yards touting our democratic member of the federal house.

This woman has since left the legislature, still calls herself a republican, and poo-poos the far right every chance she gets.

Now, that is no reason for the far right to come unhinged and turn their backs on people who can help them in their desires for certain legislative achievements.

But my point is that many of "conservatives" saw our points of view being ignored on one side and simply blown out of proportion on the other side.

What has happened is a sense of frustration and the stormtrooper nut jobs have moved in to take advantage of that frustration. It now takes the form of "my way or the highway" politics.

And the GOP has split into two camps. The moderates may not like democrats, but they openly hate the far right.

Who started it ? Can't really say.

Again, my point is that inclusiveness only happens when people feel they can achieve something together.

One of the issues of the far right is this type of purity mentality.

If a guy is a great fiscal hawk, but isn't a raging bull when it comes to aboriton.....we'll he just isn't a "true" conservative. That really pisses me off.

The example of MD is not something I like to see.

Again, inclusiveness is something that is not an all or nothing deal. You work with those who feel the way you do.

In my estimation, we need to find the blue dog democrats and say lets get after the budget. We'll just have to shout at each other over social issues...but at the end of the day, when the shouting is over, we are collaborating on getting our budget under control.

That is inclusive.

The other thing...is that there is no need to be so "in your face" about things. That I don't get. You can be quiet and strong at the same time.

Buddy, you are speaking directly from my heart.

There is a serious disconnect in your party between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

But I do not support Right-Wing trickle down economics. That makes me neither a pure Liberal, but definitely not a Conservative.

And what you wrote is exactly what the owner of that website called "The Hedgehog Report", is trying to get across to people.

You can either be totally for purity, or you can win elections. Take your pick.

Staying on this part of the conversation (which was the intent of the thread), I'll continue.

While I am all about inclusiveness, one of the things missing in today's conversations is a deep discussion of the goals and responsibilities of society, what part government has in that, and what the process is for achieving those goals.

If we had that discussion on a more regular basis, I think you'd see many issues resolved in a more win/win kind of way.

Example:

I brought up the issue of health insurance in 1993/1994 right after the Hillarycare scare. I didn't want Hillarycare but I knew from personal experience that we had an issue with the delivery of insurance and health care. I told people that if the GOP didn't grab this discussion, it was going to get shoved down their throats.

Of course, the left always says it was a GOP idea (the retarded Heritage Foundation memo), to which I say....if the GOP had wanted it they had all they needed from 1994 to 2006 to make it happen. You never heard it talked about.

They ignored it.

I've never suffered from a lack of health insurance, but I know several who have. I've seen them screwed by the system and victims of the way the system is set up.

If the GOP had acknowledged this in 1994 and had said, we want to do something about this (but it ain't universal health care......not sure just what it is....may state run systems...don't know), I think we would have a much better deal than we have today.

They ignored it and when it was passed I pissed off a lot of conservatives when I said we only had ourselves to blame.

We should have started by defining the problem.

Is it that people don't have health insurance ?

Is that people who want health insurance can't get it ?

Is it people being cancelled ?

Is it pre-existing conditions ?

Do we need to let people go the ER and receive treatment they have no intention of paying for ?

Do we do to many tests ?

All of these questions can bring a point of view and we can go down each one point by point. Not everyone will agree on everything, but with some basic agreement the rest can be worked out.

And they will evolve. And each state would do it differently.

Inclusiveness means getting all the stakeholders into the discussion. If you can lead the effort, you'll be better positioned to influence it.

But, for heavens sake, don't ignore it and hope it will go away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1.) Yes, I like what John Jay says - but it must also be a matter of balance. However, I do not see a direct relation between that and the two resolutions that were brought forth at the Maryland GOP meeting. For the first resolution, if you will, simply indicates that the Maryland GOP should be more inclusive. Now, how you want to define "inclusion" was the point that I was hoping serious Conservatives here would jump on, which you did to a certain point.

I will be even more specific: inclusion, as far as I am concerned, does not mean that everyone must always be welcome. I sure as heck don't want Neo-Nazis or racists or rapists (no, that is not an opening for RW crazies to mention Bill Clinton, forget it, he was NOT a rapist) in the Democratic Party, but people of diverse backgrounds shiould be welcome. Democrats who are more of the corporate type stood shoulder to shoulder with very Left-Wing Democrats in order to elect Pres. Obama twice. And we just saw that the very same type of "Obama coalition" held in the Virginia Gubernatorial and AG races about 3 weeks ago, and that in an off-year and in a state that has a paradigm of putting the opposition party to the White House into the Governor's mansion in VA. And again, a wild Tea Party type like Cuccinelli killed the GOP's chances of maintaining this type of paradigm. Why? Well, imo, party because Cuccinelli is anything but inclusive.

This gets tricky in some ways.

Where I live, the Far Right feels it has been ignored by the mainstream GOP. In time, what has become apparent is that moderate democrats run as republicans because it is the only way they can get elected. I liked the state rep where I lived (and still do) several years ago. She knew me by name and I talked with her, at length, on a number of topics.

I wasn't really all that diligent in my investigations.

Then I started seeing her yard signs in the same yards touting our democratic member of the federal house.

This woman has since left the legislature, still calls herself a republican, and poo-poos the far right every chance she gets.

Now, that is no reason for the far right to come unhinged and turn their backs on people who can help them in their desires for certain legislative achievements.

But my point is that many of "conservatives" saw our points of view being ignored on one side and simply blown out of proportion on the other side.

What has happened is a sense of frustration and the stormtrooper nut jobs have moved in to take advantage of that frustration. It now takes the form of "my way or the highway" politics.

And the GOP has split into two camps. The moderates may not like democrats, but they openly hate the far right.

Who started it ? Can't really say.

Again, my point is that inclusiveness only happens when people feel they can achieve something together.

One of the issues of the far right is this type of purity mentality.

If a guy is a great fiscal hawk, but isn't a raging bull when it comes to aboriton.....we'll he just isn't a "true" conservative. That really pisses me off.

The example of MD is not something I like to see.

Again, inclusiveness is something that is not an all or nothing deal. You work with those who feel the way you do.

In my estimation, we need to find the blue dog democrats and say lets get after the budget. We'll just have to shout at each other over social issues...but at the end of the day, when the shouting is over, we are collaborating on getting our budget under control.

That is inclusive.

The other thing...is that there is no need to be so "in your face" about things. That I don't get. You can be quiet and strong at the same time.

Buddy, you are speaking directly from my heart.

There is a serious disconnect in your party between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

But I do not support Right-Wing trickle down economics. That makes me neither a pure Liberal, but definitely not a Conservative.

And what you wrote is exactly what the owner of that website called "The Hedgehog Report", is trying to get across to people.

You can either be totally for purity, or you can win elections. Take your pick.

Actually, republicans can have both, because the social right is an aberration, anathema to fundamental republican tenets.

 

[Mertex]

We were talking about the Tea Party, and now you've switched the conversation over to Romney and Obama. I guess after I respond, you'll report me for going off-topic, no? Isn't that your MO?

You and someone else were talking Tea Party. Not me.

Well, the conversation wasn't about Obama or Romney.

Do you always have to dilute your comments with stupid insults at the end ?

That was not an insult, just a mere observation, based on a previous exchange.

But to respond to your off topic comment, it is really funny. Romney lied his ass off, and you give him a pass, but have the audacity to claim that lies define Obama? Your not bias at all, are you?

I gave Romney a pass ? I don't recall saying that. I do recall saying that I had some connection to two things, in particular, that Obama attacked Romney on and he was dead wrong on both counts. His campaign out and out lied.

When you say that lies define Obama, and you are aware that Romney lied, but you don't say that it defines him, it sure sounds like you gave him a pass.

But the discussion you chose to jump into the middle of was that Obama spent his money early on to define Romney. So you might want to focus on that and not on lecturing people about arguments you make up.

I didn't jump to anything. You responded to my comment about the Tea Party, and you brought Romney/Obama up. You're the one that ended up talking about Romney not having any money and getting smeared. So maybe you need to focus on what I was originally talking about - I never mentioned Romney nor Obama until you did, just the Tea Party.

Like so many you are outraged about what isn't said. You can continue to get all red-faced about that and draw whatever conclusions your open little mind chooses to draw.

I'm not outraged, and what exactly do you think I'm outragd about that wasn't said?

Romney not releasing his tax returns isn't lying so that discussion is over.

You may not want to call it lying, but when he is being accused of not paying taxes, and he claims he does, but refuses to show his tax returns, it pretty much is lying.

Romney got caught on tape saying something that was both wrong and damaging. He paid for it.

Yep, we can agree on that.

So instead of electing him, we elected a world class liar.

Obama isn't a liar, and if Romney had won, we would have ended up with a conniving liar.

This thread is about inclusiveness (just thought I'd point that out).

Oh yeah, isn't this about the time you report off-topic?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

Actually not, as the above is representative of most democrats.

The difference between republicans and democrats in this regard is that the former has failed to position the radical right in such a way as to not be detrimental to the GOP, where the latter has successfully marginalized the far left to not adversely effect democrats - it's one of the reasons why democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Americans will not tolerate extremism, be it left or right.

 

[Mertex]

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

Actually not, as the above is representative of most democrats.

The difference between republicans and democrats in this regard is that the former has failed to position the radical right in such a way as to not be detrimental to the GOP, where the latter has successfully marginalized the far left to not adversely effect democrats - it's one of the reasons why democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Americans will not tolerate extremism, be it left or right.

You are so right. I also am pro-life, but I don't want abortion done away with because I believe in the case of risk to the life of the mother, incest and rape that the woman should have the right to choose whether or not they want to carry the child to birth.

Most states have strict laws regarding elective abortions, and I'm fine to confining elective abortions to the first tri-mester...after that, I am not for it.

I also am for the death penalty, especially when there is enough evidence and the crime is deserving of death. I am not against owning guns, but I don't believe citizens should be able to buy AR15s and other weapons that are only appropriate for war, just because they want to.

But, it seems that some on the right just categorize every Democrat as a left wing extremist, who supports all kinds of strange life styles, who want to ban all guns and want to support people that can work but choose not to. That's just plain idiotic.

 

[Statistikhengst]

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

Actually not, as the above is representative of most democrats.

The difference between republicans and democrats in this regard is that the former has failed to position the radical right in such a way as to not be detrimental to the GOP, where the latter has successfully marginalized the far left to not adversely effect democrats - it's one of the reasons why democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Americans will not tolerate extremism, be it left or right.

the bolded: strong agreement.

As for the rest, mild disagreement - I do think there is a disonnect between social liberals and fiscal liberals, the difference being that the Democratic tent is enormous and it is already expected that there are going to be disagreements and that it is never an issue of the "all or none, take no prisioners" mentality.

 

[Statistikhengst]

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

Actually not, as the above is representative of most democrats.

The difference between republicans and democrats in this regard is that the former has failed to position the radical right in such a way as to not be detrimental to the GOP, where the latter has successfully marginalized the far left to not adversely effect democrats - it's one of the reasons why democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Americans will not tolerate extremism, be it left or right.

You are so right. I also am pro-life, but I don't want abortion done away with because I believe in the case of risk to the life of the mother, incest and rape that the woman should have the right to choose whether or not they want to carry the child to birth.

Most states have strict laws regarding elective abortions, and I'm fine to confining elective abortions to the first tri-mester...after that, I am not for it.

I also am for the death penalty, especially when there is enough evidence and the crime is deserving of death. I am not against owning guns, but I don't believe citizens should be able to buy AR15s and other weapons that are only appropriate for war, just because they want to.

But, it seems that some on the right just categorize every Democrat as a left wing extremist, who supports all kinds of strange life styles, who want to ban all guns and want to support people that can work but choose not to. That's just plain idiotic.

It appears that you and I are the same type of pro-lifers and 2nd amendmenters.

Yes, the Right loves to cast us all as Shirley Chisolm Democrats, and most of us are not. Which is why, as long as the Right continues to stay in it's bubble, it will probably continue to lose elections. Reagan won big because he was able to prove himself with Democrats who voted on pocketbook issues. He did that because he did not demonize them, but rather, talked with them. I sometimes wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance at the GOP nomination in a year like 2016, were he alive and in his prime right now.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We were talking about the Tea Party, and now you've switched the conversation over to Romney and Obama. I guess after I respond, you'll report me for going off-topic, no? Isn't that your MO?

You and someone else were talking Tea Party. Not me.

Well, the conversation wasn't about Obama or Romney.


That was not an insult, just a mere observation, based on a previous exchange.




When you say that lies define Obama, and you are aware that Romney lied, but you don't say that it defines him, it sure sounds like you gave him a pass.


I didn't jump to anything. You responded to my comment about the Tea Party, and you brought Romney/Obama up. You're the one that ended up talking about Romney not having any money and getting smeared. So maybe you need to focus on what I was originally talking about - I never mentioned Romney nor Obama until you did, just the Tea Party.


I'm not outraged, and what exactly do you think I'm outragd about that wasn't said?
You may not want to call it lying, but when he is being accused of not paying taxes, and he claims he does, but refuses to show his tax returns, it pretty much is lying.

Yep, we can agree on that.

So instead of electing him, we elected a world class liar.

Obama isn't a liar, and if Romney had won, we would have ended up with a conniving liar.

This thread is about inclusiveness (just thought I'd point that out).

Oh yeah, isn't this about the time you report off-topic?

I don't know the past history behind that statement, but I want to tell you that [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] has made a very positive impression on me for his willigness to do exactly what his user-name implies: to listen. And I find the bulk of his responses to be thought provoking. So, for me, it is worth it.

 

[beagle9]

The GOP seems like it can't go forward without grinding gears.

First off, it seems to me that The Constitution is a document that broadly outlines the rights of the citizen and the limitations of govt...

So, when you try and introduce amendments like "outlawing gay marriage" for example... take away or restrict rights on citizens, you are standing in a precarious place.

Cries of "Freedom, Freedom!" ring hollow in such light and such action. Consider how John Baynor (<might as well spell it as it's pronounced to avoid confusion .) refuses to put ENDA to a vote... what in the heck is he afraid of, "freedom"?

The will of the duly elected legislature?

Is it right when one person, for personal reasons, personal fears of "frivolous lawsuits" alone can usurp the will of a majority of the legislators? And some people refer to the President as "King Obama"... who is being a despot now?

Is he the "fall guy" so the rest can go home in 2014 and claim they supported ENDA? (If pressed on it that is...)

Next, we have the ongoing and recent attempts at voter suppression... how in the world do you expect to be "inclusive" with something like that? And did it ever occur to these that if they did manage to expand their base they would be suppressing their own supporters?

This is the kind of "Bizarroland" "logic" that must somehow be purged from the party and I applaud this gentleman's attempt at enlightening his own party, and if a democrat said the same thing many would write it off: "Meh, that's liberal lunacy!".

It's a little more difficult to schlub off when it comes from a conservative.

And my own advice is for reasonable conservatives to apply peer pressure if they want to have any chance of getting their party back in shape, I repeat: Peer Pressure.

"Irrational", "unreasonable" opposition serves no one including the unreasonable themselves...

You guys have favored the "1%" and that's about the percentage of popular vote you are working towards: 1%.

Thx

Spot-on!

You know it is a problem nationally when even Bob Dole mentions it, on, of all places, FOX NEWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqka0DFRGSk]Bob Dole Lashes Republican Party They Should Put A Sign On The Door That Says 'Closed For Repairs' - - YouTube[/ame]

Just to remind: Bob Dole was the GOP standard bearer in 1996.

I'm sure Bob Dole is considered an old RINO by many.

It seems to me that the middle-right have been using the T-party like an attack dog that they let off the leash, or let's just say let loose unchecked to spew the vile things, "testing" the limits and then if called on it or finding the majority of the public disapprove...

Then they can just write off the Ted Cruz's of the world as their "Drunk Uncle" and you'll have to excuse them, they don't speak for me" etc.

When in the heck are we going to get back to regular, "run of the mill", if you will legislating and governing?

Why does everything we see have to have some "mouse trap", Karl Rovian slant on it?

Everyone apparently wants something like Immigration reform... "but nyooooo" some little hitch like a John Baynor can hold up the entire country for purely personal reasons.

And.. I don't see anyone on the right criticizing him on this...

Is everything going to be held up until we have a virtual "do-over" of the 2012 election?

edit BBL guys.

Thx

Do you all realize that these people just because they are career politicians or representatives, that they are still family men and women for whom their actions at work does affect eventually their family life at home or beyond that home ? What they allow from their powerful positions, can make or break this nation in a heart beat for their families and their culture.

Yes, we are this connected nation of citizens who should still hold on to some important values and morals for the family, and for this nation who should be a family also in these things. Now if you are a new generation radical flaming liberal these days, in which has been seen to have very little morals left, or doesn't have an active normal family life, or even participates as a normal family member in the family, then you are accepted today more so than the ones that do still have these things intact ? Go Figure!!! It is just crazy.

If this weren't so, then we wouldn't be having these debates, but here we are.

The weakness of the left and on the right is being exploited to lay ruination to this nation, and people whom don't see this are simply participants of that attack in which is on going in this nation.

So here's part of the problem that this nation is facing today, where as it is a turn of events finally that is found within the fabric of our society, and it is being fought for by the left in which has been loaded now with a lot of weirdo types who can push a vote button just as well as the next fellow can. The conservatives and some moderate demo's see this attack on the nations social fabric now, and they are trying to close back the gates where they had already been to inclusive in the past is the way that they see it or worse far to tolerant of a lot of stuff they shouldn't have ever been so tolerant of. I mean look at the facts that are on the ground in the slippage of our society, and how it has brought forth many bad things now, and even destroyed the children's right to choose their families way of beliefs, and their long held traditional cultures/lifestyles in which are still sought after by them right before our very eyes.

Now that the idiots who were so laid back, and were trying to be so inclusive do see the damage it has all created in this nation, they are working hard to get control back somehow of the gates that protected them, and their children from these bad, bad, things. If the flamers could get the conservatives and moderate demo's to throw in the towel finally, then what would this nation be like next ? Think about that one for a good second or two. The public brainwashing facilities called our public schools had been filled with flaming bleeding heart liberals for way to long now, and this is where the attack was first mounted against the morals and values of a society who have believed in God, family, and in one nation of moral and good citizens living under God. Now if you have these values and morals about yourself, then they (these radicals who have seized the day) have made it were you are somehow an ameba who no one should get within 100 yards of you.

Isn't that amazing what has happened when one thinks about it all now ? Then you got people who resist giving up the corruption found in power, and they are found also on all sides of the isles in the arena. Not sure where the family who still has family values, of where they will end up in all of this in the end, because it is a slaughter house for such values as were once held now in America.

The young people caught up in the brainwashing, I guess fall under the old but still very relevant saying to this very day of "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

What are they supposed to be so inclusive of these days ? Define this for me please. Thanks!

 

[editec]

I am negotiating with a MD Republican activist (basically a teabagger only angrier) about having an online internet radio debate,next month.

Should we come to an agreement about how this debate is structured, I'll let ya'll know when it happens and how to find it online.

Oh this is where it will be if it happens Radio Free America with Duke Brooks 10/30 by Conservative Nation Radio | Politics Conservative Podcasts

Duke and I have been friends for decades.

He's completely and totally wrong about everything, of course.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Spot-on!

You know it is a problem nationally when even Bob Dole mentions it, on, of all places, FOX NEWS:

Bob Dole Lashes Republican Party They Should Put A Sign On The Door That Says 'Closed For Repairs' - - YouTube

Just to remind: Bob Dole was the GOP standard bearer in 1996.

I'm sure Bob Dole is considered an old RINO by many.

It seems to me that the middle-right have been using the T-party like an attack dog that they let off the leash, or let's just say let loose unchecked to spew the vile things, "testing" the limits and then if called on it or finding the majority of the public disapprove...

Then they can just write off the Ted Cruz's of the world as their "Drunk Uncle" and you'll have to excuse them, they don't speak for me" etc.

When in the heck are we going to get back to regular, "run of the mill", if you will legislating and governing?

Why does everything we see have to have some "mouse trap", Karl Rovian slant on it?

Everyone apparently wants something like Immigration reform... "but nyooooo" some little hitch like a John Baynor can hold up the entire country for purely personal reasons.

And.. I don't see anyone on the right criticizing him on this...

Is everything going to be held up until we have a virtual "do-over" of the 2012 election?

edit BBL guys.

Thx

Do you all realize that these people just because they are career politicians or representatives, that they are still family men and women for whom their actions at work does affect eventually their family life at home or beyond that home ? What they allow from their powerful positions, can make or break this nation in a heart beat for their families and their culture.

Yes, we are this connected nation of citizens who should still hold on to some important values and morals for the family, and for this nation who should be a family also in these things. Now if you are a new generation radical flaming liberal these days, in which has been seen to have very little morals left, or doesn't have an active normal family life, or even participates as a normal family member in the family, then you are accepted today more so than the ones that do still have these things intact ? Go Figure!!! It is just crazy.

If this weren't so, then we wouldn't be having these debates, but here we are.

The weakness of the left and on the right is being exploited to lay ruination to this nation, and people whom don't see this are simply participants of that attack in which is on going in this nation.

So here's part of the problem that this nation is facing today, where as it is a turn of events finally that is found within the fabric of our society, and it is being fought for by the left in which has been loaded now with a lot of weirdo types who can push a vote button just as well as the next fellow can. The conservatives and some moderate demo's see this attack on the nations social fabric now, and they are trying to close back the gates where they had already been to inclusive in the past is the way that they see it or worse far to tolerant of a lot of stuff they shouldn't have ever been so tolerant of. I mean look at the facts that are on the ground in the slippage of our society, and how it has brought forth many bad things now, and even destroyed the children right before our very eyes.

Now that the idiots who were so laid back, and were trying to be so inclusive do see the damage it has all created in this nation, they are working hard to get control back somehow of the gates that protected them, and their children from these bad, bad, things. If the flamers could get the conservatives and moderate demo's to throw in the towel finally, then what would this nation be like next ? Think about that one for a good second or two. The public brainwashing facilities called our public schools had been filled with flaming bleeding heart liberals for way to long now, and this is where the attack was first mounted against the morals and values of a society who have believed in God, family, and in one nation of moral and good citizens living under God. Now if you have these values and morals about yourself, then they (these radicals who have seized the day) have made it were you are somehow an ameba who no one should get within 100 yards of you.

Isn't that amazing what has happened when one thinks about it all now ? Then you got people who resist giving up the corruption found in power, and they are found also on all sides of the isles in the arena. Not sure where the family who still has family values, of where they will end up in all of this in the end, because it is a slaughter house for such values as were once held now in America.

The young people caught up in the brainwashing, I guess fall under the old but still very relevant saying to this very day of "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

What are they supposed to be so inclusive of these days ? Define this for me please. Thanks!

Well, I ran your words through the intergalactic translator and it kept spiitting out these four words:

The guy is angry.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am negotiating with a MD Republican activist (basically a teabagger only angrier) about having an online internet radio debate,next month.

Should we come to an agreement about how this debate is structured, I'll let ya'll know when it happens and how to find it online.

Oh this is where it will be if it happens Radio Free America with Duke Brooks 10/30 by Conservative Nation Radio | Politics Conservative Podcasts

Duke and I have been friends for decades.

He's completely and totally wrong about everything, of course.

I would love to hear that.

 

[beagle9]

I'm sure Bob Dole is considered an old RINO by many.

It seems to me that the middle-right have been using the T-party like an attack dog that they let off the leash, or let's just say let loose unchecked to spew the vile things, "testing" the limits and then if called on it or finding the majority of the public disapprove...

Then they can just write off the Ted Cruz's of the world as their "Drunk Uncle" and you'll have to excuse them, they don't speak for me" etc.

When in the heck are we going to get back to regular, "run of the mill", if you will legislating and governing?

Why does everything we see have to have some "mouse trap", Karl Rovian slant on it?

Everyone apparently wants something like Immigration reform... "but nyooooo" some little hitch like a John Baynor can hold up the entire country for purely personal reasons.

And.. I don't see anyone on the right criticizing him on this...

Is everything going to be held up until we have a virtual "do-over" of the 2012 election?

edit BBL guys.

Thx

Do you all realize that these people just because they are career politicians or representatives, that they are still family men and women for whom their actions at work does affect eventually their family life at home or beyond that home ? What they allow from their powerful positions, can make or break this nation in a heart beat for their families and their culture.

Yes, we are this connected nation of citizens who should still hold on to some important values and morals for the family, and for this nation who should be a family also in these things. Now if you are a new generation radical flaming liberal these days, in which has been seen to have very little morals left, or doesn't have an active normal family life, or even participates as a normal family member in the family, then you are accepted today more so than the ones that do still have these things intact ? Go Figure!!! It is just crazy.

If this weren't so, then we wouldn't be having these debates, but here we are.

The weakness of the left and on the right is being exploited to lay ruination to this nation, and people whom don't see this are simply participants of that attack in which is on going in this nation.

So here's part of the problem that this nation is facing today, where as it is a turn of events finally that is found within the fabric of our society, and it is being fought for by the left in which has been loaded now with a lot of weirdo types who can push a vote button just as well as the next fellow can. The conservatives and some moderate demo's see this attack on the nations social fabric now, and they are trying to close back the gates where they had already been to inclusive in the past is the way that they see it or worse far to tolerant of a lot of stuff they shouldn't have ever been so tolerant of. I mean look at the facts that are on the ground in the slippage of our society, and how it has brought forth many bad things now, and even destroyed the children right before our very eyes.

Now that the idiots who were so laid back, and were trying to be so inclusive do see the damage it has all created in this nation, they are working hard to get control back somehow of the gates that protected them, and their children from these bad, bad, things. If the flamers could get the conservatives and moderate demo's to throw in the towel finally, then what would this nation be like next ? Think about that one for a good second or two. The public brainwashing facilities called our public schools had been filled with flaming bleeding heart liberals for way to long now, and this is where the attack was first mounted against the morals and values of a society who have believed in God, family, and in one nation of moral and good citizens living under God. Now if you have these values and morals about yourself, then they (these radicals who have seized the day) have made it were you are somehow an ameba who no one should get within 100 yards of you.

Isn't that amazing what has happened when one thinks about it all now ? Then you got people who resist giving up the corruption found in power, and they are found also on all sides of the isles in the arena. Not sure where the family who still has family values, of where they will end up in all of this in the end, because it is a slaughter house for such values as were once held now in America.

The young people caught up in the brainwashing, I guess fall under the old but still very relevant saying to this very day of "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

What are they supposed to be so inclusive of these days ? Define this for me please. Thanks!

Well, I ran your words through the intergalactic translator and it kept spiitting out these four words:

The guy is angry.

Better get that galactic translator fixed then, because I'm just concerned and not angry about what has transpired over time, and then here we have an activist President who aids and abets the radicals that have been allowed in the gates, and for whom smell extreme weakness out of all of this now. They are using his activism and hatred of certain things in this nation, to usher in a platform for themselves to stand upon against a society that is resisting these platforms in which they wish to have for themselves to stand upon. When do the good people have an ear once again, instead of what has gone or transpired in it all now ? The using of people to gain power, and to take control of a platform that is nothing of what these people who are used for that reason realize, I think is a crime of a great magnitude. Do young people not realize that the destruction of their parents world by their own hands, is eventually the destruction of their own world in which they had come from in the end ? Do the young folks of this nation hate their families that bad, that they would lie down with the devil himself against them now ? I will also ask why have the parents let their children down so bad in life, and why have they allowed a government to get in power that is against them and their families, and therefore has since driven a wedge even deeper between them and their families ? The government is poised to separate them in order to breed weakness in this separation, and that is what we have been seeing for quite sometime now in America... All these things have come to pass, and yet we were blinded not to wake up and smell the bad coffee that was brewing so far back in time now against us all in this nation, but WHY, why were we asleep for so long ? Was it power, and the corrupting influences of said power, was it Hollywood and it's corrupting influence also, or was it the mockery of the belief systems in which we have had or worse the tricksters who poisoned all the wells in which we drink from ? Could it be just any combination of these things, be it of this and of that I wonder ? People have blinked, and it is costing them and their families now big time.

 

[beagle9]

We were talking about the Tea Party, and now you've switched the conversation over to Romney and Obama. I guess after I respond, you'll report me for going off-topic, no? Isn't that your MO?

You and someone else were talking Tea Party. Not me.

Well, the conversation wasn't about Obama or Romney.


That was not an insult, just a mere observation, based on a previous exchange.




When you say that lies define Obama, and you are aware that Romney lied, but you don't say that it defines him, it sure sounds like you gave him a pass.


I didn't jump to anything. You responded to my comment about the Tea Party, and you brought Romney/Obama up. You're the one that ended up talking about Romney not having any money and getting smeared. So maybe you need to focus on what I was originally talking about - I never mentioned Romney nor Obama until you did, just the Tea Party.


I'm not outraged, and what exactly do you think I'm outragd about that wasn't said?
You may not want to call it lying, but when he is being accused of not paying taxes, and he claims he does, but refuses to show his tax returns, it pretty much is lying.

Yep, we can agree on that.

So instead of electing him, we elected a world class liar.

Obama isn't a liar, and if Romney had won, we would have ended up with a conniving liar.

This thread is about inclusiveness (just thought I'd point that out).

Oh yeah, isn't this about the time you report off-topic?

Couldn't let this one stated above go by, because if he would have been found by the government, not to have been paying his taxes, then he would have paid the price for that just like anyone else would have. Ok so he was not found by the government and/or the IRS to not have been paying his taxes as was accused of him or even in the way that people had claimed as a distraction for political gains that he wasn't during the election, so it turns out that he was not lying at all, and therefore needed not to prove his accusers right when they were pure wrong on that issue right ?

 

[Listening]

But, it seems that some on the right just categorize every Democrat as a left wing extremist, who supports all kinds of strange life styles, who want to ban all guns and want to support people that can work but choose not to. That's just plain idiotic.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement ?

 

[Listening]

You and someone else were talking Tea Party. Not me.

Well, the conversation wasn't about Obama or Romney.


That was not an insult, just a mere observation, based on a previous exchange.




When you say that lies define Obama, and you are aware that Romney lied, but you don't say that it defines him, it sure sounds like you gave him a pass.


I didn't jump to anything. You responded to my comment about the Tea Party, and you brought Romney/Obama up. You're the one that ended up talking about Romney not having any money and getting smeared. So maybe you need to focus on what I was originally talking about - I never mentioned Romney nor Obama until you did, just the Tea Party.


I'm not outraged, and what exactly do you think I'm outragd about that wasn't said?
You may not want to call it lying, but when he is being accused of not paying taxes, and he claims he does, but refuses to show his tax returns, it pretty much is lying.

Yep, we can agree on that.

Obama isn't a liar, and if Romney had won, we would have ended up with a conniving liar.

This thread is about inclusiveness (just thought I'd point that out).

Oh yeah, isn't this about the time you report off-topic?

Couldn't let this one stated above go by, because if he would have been found by the government, not to have been paying his taxes, then he would have paid the price for that just like anyone else would have. Ok so he was not found by the government and/or the IRS to not have been paying his taxes as was accused of him or even in the way that people had claimed as a distraction for political gains that he wasn't during the election, so it turns out that he was not lying at all, and therefore needed not to prove his accusers right when they were pure wrong on that issue right ?

It's not worth the time to point it out. There'll only be more talking points to follow.

 

[Listening]

Actually not, as the above is representative of most democrats.

The difference between republicans and democrats in this regard is that the former has failed to position the radical right in such a way as to not be detrimental to the GOP, where the latter has successfully marginalized the far left to not adversely effect democrats - it's one of the reasons why democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections.

Americans will not tolerate extremism, be it left or right.

You are so right. I also am pro-life, but I don't want abortion done away with because I believe in the case of risk to the life of the mother, incest and rape that the woman should have the right to choose whether or not they want to carry the child to birth.

Most states have strict laws regarding elective abortions, and I'm fine to confining elective abortions to the first tri-mester...after that, I am not for it.

I also am for the death penalty, especially when there is enough evidence and the crime is deserving of death. I am not against owning guns, but I don't believe citizens should be able to buy AR15s and other weapons that are only appropriate for war, just because they want to.

But, it seems that some on the right just categorize every Democrat as a left wing extremist, who supports all kinds of strange life styles, who want to ban all guns and want to support people that can work but choose not to. That's just plain idiotic.

It appears that you and I are the same type of pro-lifers and 2nd amendmenters.

Yes, the Right loves to cast us all as Shirley Chisolm Democrats, and most of us are not. Which is why, as long as the Right continues to stay in it's bubble, it will probably continue to lose elections. Reagan won big because he was able to prove himself with Democrats who voted on pocketbook issues. He did that because he did not demonize them, but rather, talked with them. I sometimes wonder if Ronald Reagan would even have a chance at the GOP nomination in a year like 2016, were he alive and in his prime right now.

I would again go back to the notion that you need to fundamentally determine what your positions are and let the discussion flow from there.

Had Reagan come out and spoken of cooperating with democrats, my guess is that he would have been seen as one type of politician and certainly not acceptable to a portion of the far right.

At the same time, if his principles were well known in advance (and proven) then the tactics probably might have received more leeway.

But anyone who says that "government is the problem" isn't going to immediately draw the ire of the far right.

Also recall that Reagan's post presidency approval has increases substantially. It was especially during his second term he took a lot of flack.

In this, I would also say that the far right and the far left were not as prominent in his day. They feed off of each other. I am not so sure Sam Numm (sp?), who I really liked, also would have survived.

Reagan was also a pragmatist and (like Gerald Ford), I suspect his approach would not be the same today as it was back then.

Now, for the purposes of discussion, do you think your statement applies at the local level (city council) ?