GOP Quickly Becoming A Fractured Party. I LOVE IT!!!

[Truthmatters]

You embrace stupid and heave nothing but childish bullshit in the face of cold hard facts

 

[Katzndogz]

why does the answer to EVERYTHING from you people include limiting the choice of the people?

The Executive Branch has term limits. Does that mean people do not have a free choice in the Presidential election?

Term limits aren't so that people can exercise free choice, but to limit their ability to do so. It was to prevent a president from serving for life. This is what we see in despotic nations where presidents are presidents for 30-40 years getting re-elected time after time. How they get reelected might be a matter for suspicion, like obama's reelection is. In American History, presidents have simply not run after two terms. When George Washington was elected our first president, no one expected him to leave after serving two terms. The "understanding" of two terms at the time was a bulwark against a monarchy. Today we don't have politicians of the integrity of Washington or Jefferson. We have men who wish to be drunk with absolute power which will corrupt them absolutely.

 

[Glensather]

There are five candidates who want to run for an office.

the peoples first choice is the lady they voted for last time.

That person is NOT alllowed on the ballot because they served before.


Now there will only be four for the people to choose from and whomever they choose is the peoples second best choice.


How does that expand the voters choices?

...what?
You do know what a term limit is, right? It applies to that position only.
Take Hillary for example. If there was a 4-term Senator limit, that in no way affects a two-term Presidential limit.

I use Hillary because that's who I assume you're talking about.
I'm mostly addressing the people who've been in office for like a billion years.

 

[Freewill]

The minority of the minority party does not get to rule the government in a democracy

I am glad you realize that the disaster of the last 6 years, since the majority party took over, is the cause of everything wrong in the country. Progress.

 

[Truthmatters]

The minority of the minority party does not get to rule the government in a democracy

I am glad you realize that the disaster of the last 6 years, since the majority party took over, is the cause of everything wrong in the country. Progress.

Your fucking insane

 

[Truthmatters]

There are five candidates who want to run for an office.

the peoples first choice is the lady they voted for last time.

That person is NOT alllowed on the ballot because they served before.


Now there will only be four for the people to choose from and whomever they choose is the peoples second best choice.


How does that expand the voters choices?

...what?
You do know what a term limit is, right? It applies to that position only.
Take Hillary for example. If there was a 4-term Senator limit, that in no way affects a two-term Presidential limit.

I use Hillary because that's who I assume you're talking about.
I'm mostly addressing the people who've been in office for like a billion years.

where did I say ANYTHING like you are claiming here?

jesus your confused

 

[Truthmatters]

term limits are an idea developed by the monied interests designed to limit the power of the peoples choice in our democracy

 

[rightwinger]

What's changed since Bush was chosen to destroy Kerry?

TeaTards

You mean the conservatives that voted Dems out of the HoR in 2010?



Geez, get over it already; take comfort in the fact that Obama will probably appoint another liberal justice to the supreme court to help ensure "progressive" deliberations for the next decade.

No, I mean the TeaTards

The ones who force unelectable candidates on the Republicans and force unelectable platforms on electable candidates

 

[Samson]

TeaTards

You mean the conservatives that voted Dems out of the HoR in 2010?



Geez, get over it already; take comfort in the fact that Obama will probably appoint another liberal justice to the supreme court to help ensure "progressive" deliberations for the next decade.

No, I mean the TeaTards

The ones who force unelectable candidates on the Republicans and force unelectable platforms on electable candidates

Your have some unresolved insecurity issues regarding conservative grass-roots values.

Try using two-ply toilet paper.

 

[DaGoose]

why does the answer to EVERYTHING from you people include limiting the choice of the people?

The Executive Branch has term limits. Does that mean people do not have a free choice in the Presidential election?

Term limits aren't so that people can exercise free choice, but to limit their ability to do so. It was to prevent a president from serving for life. This is what we see in despotic nations where presidents are presidents for 30-40 years getting re-elected time after time. How they get reelected might be a matter for suspicion, like obama's reelection is. In American History, presidents have simply not run after two terms. When George Washington was elected our first president, no one expected him to leave after serving two terms. The "understanding" of two terms at the time was a bulwark against a monarchy. Today we don't have politicians of the integrity of Washington or Jefferson. We have men who wish to be drunk with absolute power which will corrupt them absolutely.

1) There is or was nothing "suspect" about Obams's re-election. He kicked Romney's ass in a landslide election, plain and simple.

2) Reagan and Clinton both probably would have gone on to win additional terms had they not been prevented from running again.

.

 

[WillowTree]

bla bla bla deee da.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean the conservatives that voted Dems out of the HoR in 2010?



Geez, get over it already; take comfort in the fact that Obama will probably appoint another liberal justice to the supreme court to help ensure "progressive" deliberations for the next decade.

No, I mean the TeaTards

The ones who force unelectable candidates on the Republicans and force unelectable platforms on electable candidates

Your have some unresolved insecurity issues regarding conservative grass-roots values.

Try using two-ply toilet paper.

I guess TP does mean that too

 

[DaGoose]

You mean the conservatives that voted Dems out of the HoR in 2010?



Geez, get over it already; take comfort in the fact that Obama will probably appoint another liberal justice to the supreme court to help ensure "progressive" deliberations for the next decade.

No, I mean the TeaTards

The ones who force unelectable candidates on the Republicans and force unelectable platforms on electable candidates

Your have some unresolved insecurity issues regarding conservative grass-roots values.

Try using two-ply toilet paper.

How was RW'er wrong? The Tea Party was a force to be reckoned with when they were a true grass roots movement. But no more. Even Boehner kicked their backed candidates out of leadership positions.

The only people that are threatened by them anymore are GOP candidates that face challenges in their primaries.

 

[Samson]

The Executive Branch has term limits. Does that mean people do not have a free choice in the Presidential election?

Term limits aren't so that people can exercise free choice, but to limit their ability to do so. It was to prevent a president from serving for life. This is what we see in despotic nations where presidents are presidents for 30-40 years getting re-elected time after time. How they get reelected might be a matter for suspicion, like obama's reelection is. In American History, presidents have simply not run after two terms. When George Washington was elected our first president, no one expected him to leave after serving two terms. The "understanding" of two terms at the time was a bulwark against a monarchy. Today we don't have politicians of the integrity of Washington or Jefferson. We have men who wish to be drunk with absolute power which will corrupt them absolutely.

1) There is or was nothing "suspect" about Obams's re-election. He kicked Romney's ass in a landslide election, plain and simple.

2) Reagan and Clinton both probably would have gone on to win additional terms had they not been prevented from running again.

.

The point was that there are those that feel an election can be rigged (frankly I believe Bush's win in FL over Gore could have been a better example than Obama's recent victory).

Term limits resolve the "conspiracy" theorists' fears, real or imagined, that re-relection will not happen.

 

[Stephanie]

good grief, every thread is turning into the TM show..

not good

 

[Samson]

No, I mean the TeaTards

The ones who force unelectable candidates on the Republicans and force unelectable platforms on electable candidates

Your have some unresolved insecurity issues regarding conservative grass-roots values.

Try using two-ply toilet paper.

I guess TP does mean that too

If only congress could find common ground as easily as we can.

 

[Glensather]

where did I say ANYTHING like you are claiming here?

jesus your confused

You're saying that term limits force people to not choose who they want... in that case, POTUS. I responded.

How am I confused?

term limits are an idea developed by the monied interests designed to limit the power of the peoples choice in our democracy

So are you saying there shouldn't be term limits at all, even President?

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's true though. There is a whole segment of the republican party that thinks if they become more like democrats, they will be just as popular as democrats. It's like the plain girl in school who thinks she will be just as popular as the prom queen if she has sex with the entire football team.

The nation has tipped into financial catastrophe and social degeneracy. This is the majority, a bare majority but still a majority. The leeches are never going to vote for the host to have the ability to remove the leech.

These systems always fail. They have failed historically and they are failing today in Europe. The best action for conservative republicans to take is to let it go and put efforts into subverting the failing system. Meanwhile forming an agenda that could immediately replace the failure when the time comes.

Thank you for a very well thought out and meaningful post, shy of the cursing and ridicule that seems to be pervasive here.

You are correct. This country is headed down the "road to ruin" and I doubt that there is much anyone can do about it, but sit back, wait for the fall of the empire and attempt to pick up the pieces (given that there are any left).

I don't think, in my heart of hearts, that there is any saving us at this point. The "educated Elite" that have taught us to "talk back" and "if it feels good, do it" have set us on a course that there is no return from.

These worthless con-men and women (otherwise known as "teachers") have the Monster that they have waited patiently for, for more than 50 years. The wealthy . They also have their "Robin Hood" in place. Barry Obama. Everything I see and hear these days, from the news media to the classroom, seems to be predicated on one principle: "It's US against the Rich". Those evil, filthy rich people. How DARE they have more than me!!! They have no RIGHT to have more than ME!! They owe ALL their SUCCESS to the PEOPLE who work for THEM!!

Imagine, Russia, 1937. Imagine England, 1522. Imagine China, 1924. Imagine Cuba, 1957. Imagine Nicaragua, 1963

Prepare yourselves America. I'm no soothsayer. But the current state of our country doesn't require a rocket scientist to see the future here.

Or, as Mother Abagail said in the book "The Stand" - "You have to get ready!! The Dark Man is coming!! And he's coming for ALL of us"

 

[Glensather]

It's true though. There is a whole segment of the republican party that thinks if they become more like democrats, they will be just as popular as democrats. It's like the plain girl in school who thinks she will be just as popular as the prom queen if she has sex with the entire football team.

The nation has tipped into financial catastrophe and social degeneracy. This is the majority, a bare majority but still a majority. The leeches are never going to vote for the host to have the ability to remove the leech.

These systems always fail. They have failed historically and they are failing today in Europe. The best action for conservative republicans to take is to let it go and put efforts into subverting the failing system. Meanwhile forming an agenda that could immediately replace the failure when the time comes.

Thank you for a very well thought out and meaningful post, shy of the cursing and ridicule that seems to be pervasive here.

You are correct. This country is headed down the "road to ruin" and I doubt that there is much anyone can do about it, but sit back, wait for the fall of the empire and attempt to pick up the pieces (given that there are any left).

I don't think, in my heart of hearts, that there is any saving us at this point. The "educated Elite" that have taught us to "talk back" and "if it feels good, do it" have set us on a course that there is no return from.

These worthless con-men and women (otherwise known as "teachers") have the Monster that they have waited patiently for, for more than 50 years. The wealthy . They also have their "Robin Hood" in place. Barry Obama. Everything I see and hear these days, from the news media to the classroom, seems to be predicated on one principle: "It's US against the Rich". Those evil, filthy rich people. How DARE they have more than me!!! They have no RIGHT to have more than ME!! They owe ALL their SUCCESS to the PEOPLE who work for THEM!!

Imagine, Russia, 1937. Imagine England, 1522. Imagine China, 1924. Imagine Cuba, 1957. Imagine Nicaragua, 1963

Prepare yourselves America. I'm no soothsayer. But the current state of our country doesn't require a rocket scientist to see the future here.

Or, as Mother Abagail said in the book "The Stand" - "You have to get ready!! The Dark Man is coming!! And he's coming for ALL of us"

I see what you're saying, and for the most part, I agree. But you're missing out that some people got their wealth from less-than-wholesome means.

I have issues with the rich who did nothing to earn their money. I don't mean people who are born in to it (although I feel that they are part of the problem; being born into wealth doesn't allow one to see the true cost in things), nor do I mean people who lucked out, like lottery winners or gamblers or whatever. I'm talking about the people who stepped on everyone in their path to make a buck. Those are the only ones I take issue with.

As an example of a rich person I like... Bill Gates! My personal role model, and the richest man on Earth.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's true though. There is a whole segment of the republican party that thinks if they become more like democrats, they will be just as popular as democrats. It's like the plain girl in school who thinks she will be just as popular as the prom queen if she has sex with the entire football team.

The nation has tipped into financial catastrophe and social degeneracy. This is the majority, a bare majority but still a majority. The leeches are never going to vote for the host to have the ability to remove the leech.

These systems always fail. They have failed historically and they are failing today in Europe. The best action for conservative republicans to take is to let it go and put efforts into subverting the failing system. Meanwhile forming an agenda that could immediately replace the failure when the time comes.

Thank you for a very well thought out and meaningful post, shy of the cursing and ridicule that seems to be pervasive here.

You are correct. This country is headed down the "road to ruin" and I doubt that there is much anyone can do about it, but sit back, wait for the fall of the empire and attempt to pick up the pieces (given that there are any left).

I don't think, in my heart of hearts, that there is any saving us at this point. The "educated Elite" that have taught us to "talk back" and "if it feels good, do it" have set us on a course that there is no return from.

These worthless con-men and women (otherwise known as "teachers") have the Monster that they have waited patiently for, for more than 50 years. The wealthy . They also have their "Robin Hood" in place. Barry Obama. Everything I see and hear these days, from the news media to the classroom, seems to be predicated on one principle: "It's US against the Rich". Those evil, filthy rich people. How DARE they have more than me!!! They have no RIGHT to have more than ME!! They owe ALL their SUCCESS to the PEOPLE who work for THEM!!

Imagine, Russia, 1937. Imagine England, 1522. Imagine China, 1924. Imagine Cuba, 1957. Imagine Nicaragua, 1963

Prepare yourselves America. I'm no soothsayer. But the current state of our country doesn't require a rocket scientist to see the future here.

Or, as Mother Abagail said in the book "The Stand" - "You have to get ready!! The Dark Man is coming!! And he's coming for ALL of us"

I see what you're saying, and for the most part, I agree. But you're missing out that some people got their wealth from less-than-wholesome means.

I have issues with the rich who did nothing to earn their money. I don't mean people who are born in to it (although I feel that they are part of the problem; being born into wealth doesn't allow one to see the true cost in things), nor do I mean people who lucked out, like lottery winners or gamblers or whatever. I'm talking about the people who stepped on everyone in their path to make a buck. Those are the only ones I take issue with.

As an example of a rich person I like... Bill Gates! My personal role model, and the richest man on Earth.

Of course "some" people "got their wealth from less-than-wholesome means". Unfortunately, that's the "way of the world". Harry Reid, when elected to public office, had a net worth of $87,000. Today, his net worth is approaching 35 million dollars. Now, unless times have changed, adding his yearly salary together with his menial investment incomes, he is unable to account for nearly 25 million dollars. And, that could be nearly ANY career politician today.

The point here is that to lump everyone into the "robber baron" status because they have worked and toiled to achieve success is ridiculous. I became quite close, over the years, with a man named Harlan Sanders, Colonel Sanders, to the great unwashed. He was a member of my Church and one of the nicest men I have ever met. period.

When this gentleman got his start, he and hs Wife Claudia worked 100-110 hours a week, developing a product, marketing their product at any roadside restaurant that would give the the time of day and HE, not a Wall Street banker, built KFC into a national brand.

Along comes another "rich guy" by the name of John Y Brown who eventually bought the brand (for far less than he should have - but a huge profit for Sanders' nonetheless) and turned it into a multi-national concern.

Now, should Harlan Sanders had to have given his profits to ME, because after all, I ate his chicken on occasion and by doing so, helped him to create a successful enterprise? Or because I drove down a public roadway to get to his "finger-licking good restaurant?"

Should Bill Gates be forced to give YOU a computer for free, because, after all, you have helped him along by purchasing a Microsoft product at one time or another? Should Gates be required to pay more than anyone else in taxes, because, after all, he drove on a public highway to get to work?

This is the warped logic that the left his throwing out today. Gates pays an ENORMOUS amount of taxes as it is, does he not? As does any other company that prospers in this country. How much is enough? Or, as many are suggesting today, should we just "confiscate" in the name of "social justice" ( code for grabbing by the "Central Government")

Bill Gate has done many great things with his profits and I congratulate him for that. Harlan Sanders, on more than one occasion, kept several Churches in our area from folding by his generous contributions. I wonder how long both these men would continue to help, if they were continually painted as "evil, rich men" who only want to "take", rather than "give back"?