Are Republcians against hope and change?

For Republicans Bipartisanship Means

motivator69601916.jpg


motivator03078681.jpg
 
signalmankenneth said:
motivator69601916.jpg


motivator03078681.jpg
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of democrats being different?

This is the biggest problem. Its not whether there is hope or change. Its that both sides insist that THEY can help the country if the other side would just stop fighting against them.
 
maineman said:
sure...look at the cooperation Reagan received from democrats in the first two years of HIS first term.
Click to expand...

Almost 30 years ago and thats it? Nothing more recent? I think you have proven my point quite well, thanks.
 
Isn't this kind of like asking if Democrats are against "Earn" and "Thrift"?

It depends entirely on what is hoped for, and what is proposed to change.

Earning is normally good, as well as thrift, but both can be negatives depending on what is "Earned" and if one is "Thrifty" with the wrong thing. One can "earn" the contempt of all humans, for instance. One can "earn" a Jail Sentence... One can be thrifty with the time they spend with their children...
 
Damocles said:
Isn't this kind of like asking if Democrats are against "Earn" and "Thrift"?

It depends entirely on what is hoped for, and what is proposed to change.

Earning is normally good, as well as thrift, but both can be negatives depending on what is "Earned" and if one is "Thrifty" with the wrong thing. One can "earn" the contempt of all humans, for instance. One can "earn" a Jail Sentence... One can be thrifty with the time they spend with their children...
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I keep hearing Republicans talk about hope and change as if they are against the general concepts.
 
WinterBorn said:
So far its not working real well. What I have seen is more of the same.

I have seen wild spending. I have seen the same secrecy that went on before. I have seen people in charge who seem to think the laws don't apply to them.


Tell us what changed? Or should we be HOPING for change while we get screwed like always?
Click to expand...

Iraq Policy changed, Afganistan policy changed, we have a president who can speak in complete sentences... thats changed. Enviromental policy has changed, drug policy has changed, The pholosophy of those placed on the s.Ct has changed.... America's immage abroad has changed, The average intelegence Quotia of Washington D.C. has increased, the DOW has changed, the rate of increase of job loss has changed, the amount of Americans loosing there lives has changed, the taking away rights by the government of those accused of crimes has ceased... Ill come up with more... but that was just off the top of my head.
 
Funny how Conservatives who loved Bush are now argueing that nuthing has changed and they hate Obama!
 
Jarod said:
I agree with you, but I keep hearing Republicans talk about hope and change as if they are against the general concepts.
Click to expand...
Let's say Bush ran on "Earn and Thrift" like Obama did with "Hope and Change"...

The reality is that the Ds would be "against" that because of the policy that attached to it. The Rs simply point out that the words sound good, and many were sold that bill of goods, but it really wasn't well built and the warranty doesn't cover anything.

How is that hopey-changey thing working for ya?

;)
 
Damocles said:
Let's say Bush ran on "Earn and Thrift" like Obama did with "Hope and Change"...

The reality is that the Ds would be "against" that because of the policy that attached to it. The Rs simply point out that the words sound good, and many were sold that bill of goods, but it really wasn't well built and the warranty doesn't cover anything.

How is that hopey-changey thing working for ya?

;)
Click to expand...

Not so good from the information on Bayh and now this on Boxer's chances:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/barbara-boxer-carly-fiorina-chuck-devore.html

New poll: Now, signs of real vulnerability for California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer
February 15, 2010 * 3:22 pm

So, is California's brittle Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer about to become the next Harry Reid? Which is to say, embattled at home.

As Reid worked the wallets of San Francisco on Presidents' Day to raise money for his endangered seat in Nevada, some stunning new Rasmussen Reports poll out today makes a compelling point:

For the second straight month the three-term senator is unable to break the 50% mark against any potential Republican opponents, the historical measuring mark of vulnerability for an incumbent nine months before an election.

For a Democrat in a Democrat state that gave Barack Obama 61% of its votes in 2008 (and still likes him more than many other places) to be mired in the mid-40's is a sign of real trouble. This is especially so given the fact that disgruntled voters gave Democrats control of the House, Senate and White House in 2008, expecting something to....

...happen beyond another congressional payraise...
Click to expand...
 
Jarod said:
Iraq Policy changed, Afganistan policy changed, we have a president who can speak in complete sentences... thats changed. Enviromental policy has changed, drug policy has changed, The pholosophy of those placed on the s.Ct has changed.... America's immage abroad has changed, The average intelegence Quotia of Washington D.C. has increased, the DOW has changed, the rate of increase of job loss has changed, the amount of Americans loosing there lives has changed, the taking away rights by the government of those accused of crimes has ceased... Ill come up with more... but that was just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

The Iraq policy has changed, but we are still there.

The Afganistan policy has changed, but we are still there. So what you are saying is that lipservice from politicians, with no discernible change in the reality of either war, is a positive thing? Is this what he meant by his campaign promises?

The evironmental policy changed from one of giving the world away to the worst industries to one of reactionistic nonsense based on bad science. I wouldn't brag about that too much.

There were promises mae about the drug policies, but nothing has changed concerning the reality of the people being charged with crimes. Nor has there been significant change in the availability of medical marijuana.

The average IQ in Washington?? WTF? Look, if you are going to complain about someone saying "hopey changey" its not wise to start taking cheap shots yourself. Has there been any study of the IQs of those in DC? No, but you don't mind a cheap shot. Which actually proves my point yet again.

And as far as the rights being taken away, wasn't it the Obama administration that has basically said they aren't worried about whether we are innocent or guilty? Of course, you COULD be talking about all the members of this administration that have had serious tax problems. Their right to be in DC seems safe.




In short, you have continued to prove my point that BOTH sides are doing the same thing. What amazes me is that you think its ok when its your team doing it, but dislike it when the other side does it.

It is wrong when either side does it. You need to admit that and admit that both sides do it or you just have a thread full of hypocricy.
 
WinterBorn said:
Almost 30 years ago and thats it? Nothing more recent? I think you have proven my point quite well, thanks.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to point out that the reason why Congressional Democrats were willing to work with Reagan is probably due to their legendary hatred (which was mutual) of President Carter. After having to battle with Carter for four years, Reagan arriving on the scene may not have thrilled them ideologically, but from a practical standpoint, they were convinced he would be easier to get along with.
 
Jarod said:
Funny how Conservatives who loved Bush are now argueing that nuthing has changed and they hate Obama!
Click to expand...

You are just laying one generality on top of another.

Have I ever supported Bush?

Or are you ok with this "you guys are bad!" whining from one side but think its great from the other?
 
WinterBorn said:
The Iraq policy has changed, but we are still there.

The Afganistan policy has changed, but we are still there. So what you are saying is that lipservice from politicians, with no discernible change in the reality of either war, is a positive thing? Is this what he meant by his campaign promises?

The evironmental policy changed from one of giving the world away to the worst industries to one of reactionistic nonsense based on bad science. I wouldn't brag about that too much.

There were promises mae about the drug policies, but nothing has changed concerning the reality of the people being charged with crimes. Nor has there been significant change in the availability of medical marijuana.

The average IQ in Washington?? WTF? Look, if you are going to complain about someone saying "hopey changey" its not wise to start taking cheap shots yourself. Has there been any study of the IQs of those in DC? No, but you don't mind a cheap shot. Which actually proves my point yet again.

And as far as the rights being taken away, wasn't it the Obama administration that has basically said they aren't worried about whether we are innocent or guilty? Of course, you COULD be talking about all the members of this administration that have had serious tax problems. Their right to be in DC seems safe.




In short, you have continued to prove my point that BOTH sides are doing the same thing. What amazes me is that you think its ok when its your team doing it, but dislike it when the other side does it.

It is wrong when either side does it. You need to admit that and admit that both sides do it or you just have a thread full of hypocricy.
Click to expand...

This post is made of awesome.
 
WinterBorn said:
The Iraq policy has changed, but we are still there.

The Afganistan policy has changed, but we are still there. So what you are saying is that lipservice from politicians, with no discernible change in the reality of either war, is a positive thing? Is this what he meant by his campaign promises?

The evironmental policy changed from one of giving the world away to the worst industries to one of reactionistic nonsense based on bad science. I wouldn't brag about that too much.

There were promises mae about the drug policies, but nothing has changed concerning the reality of the people being charged with crimes. Nor has there been significant change in the availability of medical marijuana.
The average IQ in Washington?? WTF? Look, if you are going to complain about someone saying "hopey changey" its not wise to start taking cheap shots yourself. Has there been any study of the IQs of those in DC? No, but you don't mind a cheap shot. Which actually proves my point yet again.

And as far as the rights being taken away, wasn't it the Obama administration that has basically said they aren't worried about whether we are innocent or guilty? Of course, you COULD be talking about all the members of this administration that have had serious tax problems. Their right to be in DC seems safe.




In short, you have continued to prove my point that BOTH sides are doing the same thing. What amazes me is that you think its ok when its your team doing it, but dislike it when the other side does it.

It is wrong when either side does it. You need to admit that and admit that both sides do it or you just have a thread full of hypocricy.
Click to expand...

exactly, at least some people on this board get it
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
This post is made of awesome.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I am just so damned tired of both sides playing us against each other and nothing getting done. The politicians start it. But with them, its at least about preserving their power and benefits. The people who follow them and blame the other side are just fools.
 
Threedee said:
I'd also like to point out that the reason why Congressional Democrats were willing to work with Reagan is probably due to their legendary hatred (which was mutual) of President Carter. After having to battle with Carter for four years, Reagan arriving on the scene may not have thrilled them ideologically, but from a practical standpoint, they were convinced he would be easier to get along with.
Click to expand...
?????....where did you get the silly idea that Democrats worked with Reagan?......have you ever heard of Tip O'Neil?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top