Yeah...your opinion on this is extremely pertinent. No one drove her anywhere, as this forum is actually as unbiased as you will find.
Then we have you....the exception to the rule.
I leaned GOP for many years, but not lately. I actually voted for Obama for President and the Democrat candidates for Senator and Representative this year because the GOP candidates were just so "wacky" for lack of a better word, or in the case of Romney obviously an elitist, d-bag puppet completely controlled by a group of advisors I wouldn't trust to tie my shoes. I have leaned GOP in the past but I did usually cast some votes for Dems just to split things up a little bit, but the GOP appears to have lost it's damn mind over the last decade and I just can't support them right now.
I would like to see them focus on individual rights instead of trying to play the Group rights game against the Dems, the GOP will lose to the Dems if they attempt to out "group right" the Dems.
The GOP definitely needs to get their Evangelical whackjobs under control. It's a shame that those people are what's being portrayed in our media as "religious", they don't sound very Christian to me.
They need to disavow Neo-Conservatism. I'm sick and tired of seeing the GOP run some Neo-Conservative candidate who is obviously in favor of big spending and gunboat diplomacy and then putting up with them telling me that said neo-con is for smaller government and enhacing our reputation overseas. Stop it GOP!
Most Democrats are not Progressives and the GOP needs to make an effort to deal with them instead of trying to engage in party-line politics which is a battle they cannot and will not ultimately win.
I would like to see them focus on individual rights instead of trying to play the Group rights game against the Dems, the GOP will lose to the Dems if they attempt to out "group right" the Dems.
The GOP definitely needs to get their Evangelical whackjobs under control. It's a shame that those people are what's being portrayed in our media as "religious", they don't sound very Christian to me.
They need to disavow Neo-Conservatism. I'm sick and tired of seeing the GOP run some Neo-Conservative candidate who is obviously in favor of big spending and gunboat diplomacy and then putting up with them telling me that said neo-con is for smaller government and enhacing our reputation overseas. Stop it GOP!
Most Democrats are not Progressives and the GOP needs to make an effort to deal with them instead of trying to engage in party-line politics which is a battle they cannot and will not ultimately win.
Seriously...I could have written this myself.
At this point, I feel abandoned and jerked over by the Republican Party...almost embarrassed. Was a time when I proudly supported Reagan, even Bush Sr. After them, things began to change in very unpleasant ways.
Conservatism wins when it is run
The core conservative belief is that all governments must be limited by written constitutions or charters. When we stray as Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney did, we tend to lose. The first Bush won because many believed he would be Reagan's third term. Had he led and governed s a conservative he would have done just fine. The second Bush won because of Democrat-weariness and, well, Ketchup Kerry.
McCain is a republican in name only. Romney, in my opinion, was insufficiently believable as a conservative. In addition he did not go after the president, a Marxist, in any substantive way.
Finally, the margin of victory, roughly 48-51, is within the margin of expected democrat voter fraud.
Think of this post as a place saver. I have work to do and really must get to it.
The core conservative belief is that all governments must be limited by written constitutions or charters. When we stray as Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney did, we tend to lose. The first Bush won because many believed he would be Reagan's third term. Had he led and governed s a conservative he would have done just fine. The second Bush won because of Democrat-weariness and, well, Ketchup Kerry.
McCain is a republican in name only. Romney, in my opinion, was insufficiently believable as a conservative. In addition he did not go after the president, a Marxist, in any substantive way.
Finally, the margin of victory, roughly 48-51, is within the margin of expected democrat voter fraud.
For me, the GOP became toxic once they started giving a crap what Bill Kristol had to say. Forget Rove, Kristol has probably done more harm to the GOP than anyone else.
Next comes Norquist. I saw an interview with him on C-SPAN after the election and he is just whacked out of his mind. All he is is some guy who heads an activist group and he was arrogant and delusional enough to say, repeatedly, that the GOP reps in Congress must do what he says regarding taxation. Talk about not understanding the concept of representative government.
If you think you feel abandoned how do you think the Abandoned Four felt just before participating in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
I am moving away from the national Republican Party. For now I will support local conservatives that I know and trust.
If Bawlin' Boehner Bails and throws the nation under the bus I will cease to be a Republican and look for a conservative party.
I agree on the harm Krystol has done and continues to do. I no longer watch news shows if he is on the show.
I disagree with you here. If representatives had no intention of remaining true to their pledge to the people they represent they should not have signed the pledge not to raise taxes.
I will actively support any conservative who goes against a politician who goes back on his pledge to his constituents.
The only oath made should be to the Republic and the only thing it should be made on is the Constitution. Not wanting to raise taxes is fine (just don't double or triple the budget as Repubs like to do, at least the Dems pay for their spending) but to swear an oath to that effect is both treasonous and contrary to their job description*.
*For Representatives, this is whatever their constituents want. Their own views are irreverent. For Senators, this is to get as much power and money as possible for their state. They're allowed to have their own views but everything they do should be with something approaching nationalism for their state driving it. Going to Congress isn't about setting yourself up for the Presidency or a pundit job at some network.
I understand your sentiment here but the GOP focusing so much on not raising taxes is misleading at best, and in my opinion outright dishonest as to how public spending is handled in this country. The GOP would have us believe that we're in trouble because spending hasn't been reigned in, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that public spending is pegged as a percentage of GDP, and that they've been responsible for this for many years. It was 18% for many years, since the downturn it's gone up to 24%. High taxes, low taxes, the spending level isn't going to change and the GOP knows that, they control the House and haven't even tried to decrease spending by any appreciable amount. I also fail to see the problem with a top marginal rate of 35%, with no loopholes. That's actually very reasonable compared to what it's been in the past, but listen to Norquist and some in the GOP you'd think the world was ending.
Last edited:
Are you in favor of moving toward tyranny then? That will be accomplished unless the House Republicans oppose everything Obama wants to do.
Really? Being for low taxes is misleading? Awesome. And dishonest as well. You are a leftist then correct?
And the Republicans would be correct. Once we moved beyond the Constitution spending has been essentially unbounded. Because of that we are on our way to being doomed.
Can you show me the public law that ties federal spending to the GDP? If there is such a law can we prosecute everyone who voted to spend more than your (mythical) law allows? Goody!
But you really cannot show me that public law can you?
I suppose you are unable to see the very real danger to our freedoms and liberty when the federal government takes so great an amount of money out of the private sector.
Why do you believe that is? Past Congresses have created a monster called entitlements. It is time to begin eliminating entitlements before they eliminate us. Don't you agree?
So you are for high unemployment then?
I do not want to appear unkind. Are you arguing that people like me should toil for people like you for about 1/3rd of our lives? How long have you been for slavery?
Isn't it?
There is only one bright spot. When we fall you fall too.
Do you realize that no representative was coerced into pledging that he or she would not raise taxes? If they renege it will be to their doom. I will aid their opponents.
After Carter destroyed the military (I saw this as a junior Army officer) Reagan spent what it took to both heal us and re-arm, re-equip and retrain us. That does take money. It is also a Constitutional requirement.
Can you show me how the Marxist, the One, the Obama has paid for his six trillion dollar increase in the debt?
Yeah, we wouldn't want to have representatives we can trust do we? If I sent you a link to the US Constitution would you read it? It appears you never have.
This is mildly humorous.
And it's the truth. Representatives represent everyone in their districts, not just the people who voted for them or their own agendas and Senators represent their state and push for more influence, wealth and power. Just because the folks in Congress are self-serving hypocrites doesn't make this any less true.
No, being for lower taxes is not dishonest but for the GOP to have been in control of the House for as many years total as they have over the last 20 years to blame the Dems for lack of spending cuts is exceptionally dishonest. What's your definition of leftist?
The Constitution has nothing to do with "unbounded" spending. There is nothing in the Constitution which limits spending.
There isn't one, and they don't need one. But, it's obviously what they've decided to do. Keeping the same spending levels over a period of decades is not a coincidence
See above. In fact such a law would in effect amend the Constitution.
I hear this a lot. Tell me how you think freedoms and liberty are in danger. And, how much money is being pulled out of the private sector?
Depends on the "entitlement". We have them because some people really need them. No, I don't think it's time we start wholesale elimination of entitlements but I do think in some cases we need to do a better job of needs testing.
You really believe that a top marginal rate of 35% causes high unemployment? If you don't like 35% you absolutely would have hated the America I grew up in, a very successful America by the way.
Don't sell yourself short, you absolutely did mean to appear unkind
. You're making assumptions about me here that you shouldn't make.No, not even close to ending.
Ah yes, more of the accusation that I'm living off of your dime. I'm willing to bet that I'm paying more in taxes than you are every year. I'm willing to bet that my property taxes alone are more than you pay in total taxes every year.
Platitudes are fine as a start point, I guess, but now we need more meat. You've made some statements here that I for one would like to hear more detail on. What freedoms and liberties have you lost? What can't you do now that you could do 40 years ago? What entitlement programs would you like to eliminate, and why? I don't expect you to name all of them, there are a lot of them, but just name a couple of big ones. Please explain how you think public spending works and why you think money is being "taken out" of the private sector. Give me some examples of why you believe we are no longer following the Constitution.
An interesting (if uninformed) take on our democratic process, as the "Move toward Tyranny" might be more likely if our system allowed for....oh, I don't know...A Tyrant.
tyr·an·ny
[tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tyr·an·nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
Though it is obvious you feel Obama is trying to take over the Government, institute martial law, build a couple thousand Gulags, and burn the bill of rights in the ashes of our constitution...reality and those pesky facts indicate something quite the opposite.
Similar threads
