The GOP: A Dying Breed

I'm fairly sure that if McCain had won over Pres. Obama - the Lily Ledbetter act wouldn't have been signed; we'd still have DADT and the govt would be defending DOMA;

Hooray for Lilly Ledbetter! I’m sure her issue was of major importance to a nation 16 trillion $ in debt, a 20% real unemployment rate and American youth being killed, maimed and mentally destroyed in 2 unconstitutional wars that both Democrats and Republicans supported.

Clinton signed DADT into law a difference between a Democrat and another Democrat. Oh! That’s right Clinton was a Democrat when he and the Republican Congress balanced a budget but now he’s a Republican because he signed DADT, huh? Just goes to show there’s no real difference, huh?


If you recall I already submitted that Democrats loving homosexuals and Republicans hating homosexuals was one of so very few real differences between the duopoly parties. So much for DOMA.

we wouldn't have pulled out of Iraq when we did and we'd be long-term in Afghanistan.

Actually you don’t have a clue when we would have left Iraq. Your proposition is pure conjecture.

As a matter of fact we are and have been in Afghanistan [n]”long term.”[/b] Obama and the Democrats had ample opportunity to end both wars in the first 2 years of Obama’s first term when Democrats controlled the Presidency and both houses of the Congress. Seems I remember a ‘surge” in Afghanistan troop numbers under this President, correct me if I’m wrong.

Libya would have been handled differently, with us leading instead of France. We'd have invaded Syria by now. Abortion might be more restricted at the federal level (hard to tell here - repubs at the federal level talk a tough game but don't really do anything about it, unlike at the state level). Not sure if we'd have school vouchers or not. I'm not sure the Washington and Colorado laws re legalizing pot would have been proposed, much less passed, since there would have been no loosening of the anti-drug rhetoric. (Yes, the fed'l govt still sends in the troops against drugs, but there were a few minutes there where they soft-pedaled it). We wouldn't have the Dream Act changes that Pres. Obama made.

All conjecture! The fact is Democrats or Republicans, we’d still have a 17 trillion $ national debt and climbing, wars and rumors of more wars, American foreign policy meddling in political and military matters of other nations, The American World Police Force, A Military budget larger than all of the other nations in the world put together, an endless stupid failed expensive Drug War and BIG intrusive government growing by leaps and bounds.

In terms of the recession - I think McCain would have made it worse by not even doing the stimulus that Pres. Obama did (which wasn't enough, but was all he felt he could get). While the bank controls that the Dems are trying to get into place are running into a lot of weakening in the rules committee, I don't think we would have even the weak ones with Repubs in charge.

The stimulus and bank bailouts were agreed policy by both the Republican and Democrat cartels. Just more evidence that they think alike and act alike. They only have different faces so we can tell em apart.

BTW, there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to stimulate or bailout anybody or anything. All of that horseshit was and is unconstitutional and there’s no credible evidence that it ended anything and a damn good argument that without federal government intervention we’d be in better shape economically today than we are and wouldn’t still have banks too BIG to fail.

So yes, there are a lot of things the parties overlap on; that's because the American people overlap AND because businesses are funding both sides.

But it makes a difference whether a Dem or a Repub is in office.

Apart from loving and or hating homosexuals, I don’t see where you’ve provided any real differences about anything of any real importance to the nation.

American people don’t overlap politically. The vast majority don’t have a fucking clue politically. They don’t even know who the Vise President is, who their representatives are or what their Constitutional rights are. Most only know Dancing With The Stars, Judge Judy, American Idol and how to make a great burger at an NFL tailgate party. When it comes to voting the only difference they know about the candidates is what the “D” & the “R” stand for, who their grandfather voted for, or who is promising them a feeding binge at the government trough.

We’re a nation of political morons and idiots, political drones and pure political assholes. We’ve become a nation Of The Bribery, By The Bribery & For The Bribed.
 
Oh - can anyone really say that if Gore had been President instead of Bush, that the next 8 years would have played out the same way?

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda!!!

How about we deal with reality as opposed to conjecture.

Can anybody point out a REAL difference between Bush and Obama?

Both thought that unconstitutional bank bailouts and Fed stimulus was cool and necessary and supported it.

Both thought continuing the undeclared unconstitutional wars was cool, so they did it.

Both thought the unconstitutional Drug War is cool, so they promoted it.

Both ran up trillions of $ to our national debt.

Both created new unconstitutional federal socialist programs.

Both lied through their teeth every chance they got/get.

Both got elected by Wall Street and Special Interest money.

Both practice/practiced Wall Street and Special Interest Cronyism.

Both probablyuse/used the IRS to intimidate the other half of the duopoly party.

Both support American interventionism worldwide.

Both support The American World Police Force.

Both are in lock step on ever important issue that effects the country.

They only have different faces so we can tell em apart.

The only difference between them is WHO they allow/allowed to feed at the government trough FIRST.
 
More bullshit. If you can't tell them apart it's because you think our political parties are monolithes instead of what they truly are. Two major coalitions of often disparate interests cobbling together compromises in order to govern affectively. Our political parties are not the problem. It's the stiff necked, rigid ideologues within the parties that are the problem.

Dude, must disagree with you on this. If you can't tell over the last 14 years alone that both political parties are all about increasing federal power over the citizens, you haven't been paying attention.
 
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda!!!

How about we deal with reality as opposed to conjecture.

Can anybody point out a REAL difference between Bush and Obama?

Both thought that unconstitutional bank bailouts and Fed stimulus was cool and necessary and supported it.

Both thought continuing the undeclared unconstitutional wars was cool, so they did it.

Both thought the unconstitutional Drug War is cool, so they promoted it.

Both ran up trillions of $ to our national debt.

Both created new unconstitutional federal socialist programs.

Both lied through their teeth every chance they got/get.

Both got elected by Wall Street and Special Interest money.

Both practice/practiced Wall Street and Special Interest Cronyism.

Both probablyuse/used the IRS to intimidate the other half of the duopoly party.

Both support American interventionism worldwide.

Both support The American World Police Force.

Both are in lock step on ever important issue that effects the country.

They only have different faces so we can tell em apart.

The only difference between them is WHO they allow/allowed to feed at the government trough FIRST.

Patently not true
 
Patently not true

Another intellectual genius presents the irrefutable argument in opposition and presents his mountain of evidence therefore.

Oh! What the fuck! It must have been presented in invisible ink, huh?????
 
Another intellectual genius presents the irrefutable argument in opposition and presents his mountain of evidence therefore.

Oh! What the fuck! It must have been presented in invisible ink, huh?????

Bitch, please. Not only are all of the points you listed, "laughable", in no way, shape, form or fashion, are you a "classic liberal". LOLOL.
 
Do you actually think any of us believe that? Believe in buying elections, or maintaining power through labor camps?

And why does none of our literature advocate these things?

Why would communist and neo-communist provide you with “literature” telling you what socialism is really all about?

Socialism is a pipe dream, a folly, pie-in-the-sky absurdity totally contrary to human nature and can only be operated by force or bribery. Thus, you have the Soviet Gulags of Communism, or the bribing of the vote with socialist programs of neo-communism.

It ain’t rocket science, its force or bribery or both.
 
Bitch, please. Not only are all of the points you listed, "laughable", in no way, shape, form or fashion, are you a "classic liberal". LOLOL.

Then of course you’re about to discredit and expose each and every one of them in an articulate manner with a bounty of evidence and your intellectual genius, right Goober?

Now that’s ”LAUGHABLE” I don’t care who the fuck ya are!!!!!
 
Why would communist and neo-communist provide you with “literature” telling you what socialism is really all about?

Socialism is a pipe dream, a folly, pie-in-the-sky absurdity totally contrary to human nature and can only be operated by force or bribery. Thus, you have the Soviet Gulags of Communism, or the bribing of the vote with socialist programs of neo-communism.

It ain’t rocket science, its force or bribery or both.

Socialism is what the socialist literature defines it as. If every socialist over the span of 200 years agrees that their ideology is a system combining a democratic state and democratic firms, then that's what it is. We have a very detailed system of beliefs - and it's something we get to create.

I can call classic liberalism an ideology advocating a totalitarian state where everyone is forced to paint themselves orange and live in huts... but that's shit and we both know it. What you're doing is the same.
 
Then of course you’re about to discredit and expose each and every one of them in an articulate manner with a bounty of evidence and your intellectual genius, right Goober?

Now that’s ”LAUGHABLE” I don’t care who the fuck ya are!!!!!

Why? The "laughability" is obvious. Not wasting my time trying to prove anything to a narrow-minded dweeb.
 
I think the more accurate translation is to ignore the extremists and get back to what the GOP does best, namely getting an honestly smaller gov't. That means getting away from the gay marriage issue, the prayer in schools issue, the teaching intelligent design issue, and other social conservative themes.

Present a party that actually is interested in fiscally conservative issues and they will carry the day.
Wrong as usual. the Social conservatives make up the majority of the GOP you pusillanimous twit!
 
Wrong as usual. the Social conservatives make up the majority of the GOP you pusillanimous twit!

Bullshit, Boorish.

Even the Republicans don't want your stink around.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gop-should-invite-social-conservative-extremists-to-leave-93297/


Former Arkansas governor and presidential contender Mike Huckabee threatens that if Republicans embrace same-sex marriage and ignore the religious right agenda, he will lead evangelicals and social conservatives out of the GOP and form a third party.
Republican leaders should take him up on his offer and let 'em walk! Otherwise the extreme social conservatives will relegate the GOP to the dustbin of history.
The GOP's Civil War
The GOP's 2012 election defeats have ignited a full-scale civil war between the three factions within the Republican Party.
The first faction consists in establishment conservatives who are social engineers from the right. They accept the welfare state; they just want to introduce market mechanisms to make programs like Social Security and Medicare work better. They've even expanded the welfare state: George W. Bush created No Child Left Behind and a new prescription drug entitlement; Mitt Romney created Romneycare, the model for Obamacare.
The second faction is made up of the social conservatives, including many evangelicals like Huckabee. Their highest priorities include limiting the liberty of gays to marry and banning abortion. They dream of imposing their version of Christian values on America. Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania Senator, is quite clear about his faction's ideology: "This whole idea of personal autonomy-I don't think that most conservatives hold that point of view." He argues that "We're not the Libertarian Party, we're the Republican Party."
 
So we, as the Conservative majority, have no representation? Screw that, prag.

You aren't the conservative majority. You're the conversative minority. And you have representation. Just not worthy representation.

See: Rand Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Trent Franks, Virginia Foxx, Sarah Palin, Paul Broun, Herman Cain, Allen West, Ted Cruz, et al.
 
You aren't the conservative majority. You're the conversative minority. And you have representation. Just not worthy representation.

See: Rand Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Trent Franks, Virginia Foxx, Sarah Palin, Paul Broun, Herman Cain, Allen West, Ted Cruz, et al.
All people of higher integrity than your frootloops counterparts like Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Piglosi, Dingy Harry and the Communist in Chief. Barry Obunghole.
 
Wrong as usual. the Social conservatives make up the majority of the GOP you pusillanimous twit!

If that is true, which I doubt, it might explain why Obama won a second term.

It also explains why so many people have bailed out of the GOP. They are tired of the hypocrisy of claiming to want smaller & less intrusive gov't, while pushing for more intrusion into private lives.
 
If that is true, which I doubt, it might explain why Obama won a second term.

It also explains why so many people have bailed out of the GOP. They are tired of the hypocrisy of claiming to want smaller & less intrusive gov't, while pushing for more intrusion into private lives.
No, preserving what is right and just. That means protecting the unborn and the marriage structure as it is properly defined.
 
No, preserving what is right and just. That means protecting the unborn and the marriage structure as it is properly defined.

And the GOP has done what to change the abortion rulings? Right, not a damn thing. Every GOP president since Reagan has talked a good game but has done nothing.

If you pay attention you can see that the people are tired of having the gov't messing with personal lives.
 
Back
Top