PDA

View Full Version : I Hate the GOP



SicEmBaylor
2/16/2012, 07:27 PM
I do. I absolutely hate this godforsaken party that I've always called home. No serious conservative could ever be enthusiastic about voting for the bottom dwelling pond scum that populate its ranks from the lowliest city official in a town the size of a zit on a flea's *** to the so-called crème de la crème vying to become the next Czar of this American Empire.

I loathe that statists control the party and brazingly point their hypocritical finger at liberal statists and accuse others of what they themselves are shamefully guilty of. I loathe the fact that so many of its candidates dare call themselves conservatives while they have spent their careers expanding government and interfering with the personal lives of American citizens -- interfering on issues that are none of the government or society's damned business. Our so-called conservatives make careers out of regulating the personal liberty of American citizens in the same way liberals make careers out of regulating the economic liberty of American citizens. It is hard not to become furious at a party that is downright hostile to the educated, to women, and to those citizens who do not share Judeo-Christian beliefs that so many in the party incorrectly point to as the basis of our once great civilization. The GOP has violated our trust with money, with our personal liberty, and even with our property (*cough* TTC *cough*). This is a party that has created and expanded a fascistic police state and made it a policy goal to perpetuate a never ending war against a tactic that can never be beaten in a conflict that will never be won against people who have done us no harm (those who have notwithstanding).

This is a party that was born to serve the interests of the banking system, big business, and those who wanted a strong, powerful, and highly centralized government. There are those in the party who are being oppressed by the policies of the central banking system, who believe in local-state control of their affiars, but who are nonetheless supportive of this party. People wonder why nothing ever changes in Washington regardless of who wins an election, and the answer is crystal-clear. There is no fundamental difference between the Republican Party and Democrat Party. The difference is of policy not of philosophy or ideology. The difference is the degree to which each exploits the powers of the government to oppress the people, but both accept the credibility and legitimacy of the power of the state to curb the liberty of the citizenry.

Nothing is going to change in this party. It needs to die. The statists need a party unto themselves regardless of what flavor of statist they happen to be. Those who love and believe in liberty must stop supporting a political party that is hostile to those beliefs. The party must die. The party must be replaced. The GOP must join its forerunner, the Whigs, in the ash heap of history. If the Republican Party were a house, I'd be an arsonist who douses it in gasoline and gleefully strikes a match and watches it burn.

OU_Sooners75
2/16/2012, 08:02 PM
Tell us how you really feel.

And judging by your sig, you are not a republican anyway....Maybe Liberterian (like me).

SicEmBaylor
2/16/2012, 08:11 PM
Tell us how you really feel.

And judging by your sig, you are not a republican anyway....Maybe Liberterian (like me).

I've been a hardcore committed Republican since 8th grade when I passed out Dole/Kemp buttons to my teachers. I've spent my life since then working in virtually every job imaginable within a campaign and all for Republican candidates. Hell, I was a Republican candidate for the State Legislature. Part of the problem is that I've changed, and part of the problem is that the Republican Party does not stand for the values that I always believed it stood for. Naivety on my part is part of the problem, but over time I've morphed into much more of a liberty-oriented conservative.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is my ideal template for transforming the party. If RLC types were in control and shaping the party's platform and identity then I'd once again be an enthusiastic supporter.

OU_Sooners75
2/16/2012, 08:32 PM
Well, young man....You will find out the older that you get, the party lines are constantly changing. The only thing that usually remains the same is their core values.

For example, when I was a young lad, Reagan was in office. He was considered ultra conservative by many, but today he would be moderate.

Another example, the say JFK would be a republican in today's politics.

Times change. And when times change, people tend to adapt. And that is what is happening today.

The way politicians work is for votes. They cannot get elected if they do not energize more than just their base. They must energize those people that are considered swing voters (or independents).

I have changed. My first time voting, I voted for Clinton. The next two times for Bush. The last time (by mistake it appears) Obama. In all this, I have been a registered democrat...but mainly middle of the road and voted for the person and their values not the party. So I am more in line with independent I guess.

But as the older I get and watching my kids grow up. I am leaning more and more to the conservative side of things. Even though my core values have been conservative, I have been a free thinker....

I am not a progressive or socialist though....


Anyway, to repeat, as time goes on, changes happen. Leading for the political parties to adapt to the times....but trying to keep their core values the same.

OhU1
2/16/2012, 09:23 PM
It is hard not to become furious at a party that is downright hostile to the educated, to women, and to those citizens who do not share Judeo-Christian beliefs that so many in the party incorrectly point to as the basis of our once great civilization. The GOP has violated our trust with money, with our personal liberty, and even with our property
This is a party that was born to serve the interests of ... those who wanted a strong, powerful, and highly centralized government......

Well said. This is where I am. I am struck most of all by the proud willful ignorance of the modern "conservative Republican" which seems to have developed out of the Ronnie Reagan, Jerry Falwell revolution of the 80's. A party which rejects science and progress has no long term future in the modern world. I'm looking for an alternative to leave it behind. The Democrats don't want me either, I'm white and wear a tie to work. :(

dwarthog
2/17/2012, 09:33 AM
Well said. This is where I am. I am struck most of all by the proud willful ignorance of the modern "conservative Republican" which seems to have developed out of the Ronnie Reagan, Jerry Falwell revolution of the 80's. A party which rejects science and progress has no long term future in the modern world. I'm looking for an alternative to leave it behind. The Democrats don't want me either, I'm white and wear a tie to work. :(

This ignorance you are referring too is by no means limited to a particular political view point.

The sycophants on the Democratic side are guilty of blindly accepting whatever they are fed without question with regards to science and progress. They would do well to scratch under the surface a bit to make sure they are adequately informed. Politicians make a living of these kinds of ill informed people.

There is valid reason to question both sides with regards to their "intent" and the "facts" associated with their policies and the methods by which they come to those decisions.

C&CDean
2/17/2012, 09:52 AM
I don't put near as much thought into it as Sicem, but I'm pretty much disgusted as well. If the bozos we've got running are the best we've got, well then **** it all. In the A.

The closest thing to someone I might vote for is Gingrich, but all he is is a Bill Clinton wannabe. I'm kind of surprised the lefties don't dig on him.

badger
2/17/2012, 10:27 AM
NP and I had a discussion about this a week or two ago. I think our younger generation is less inclined to be as devoted or rah-rah about a single party, or even a single religious denomination as our parents and grandparents.

I think it's because political parties have done little to gain our support or our participation, or because we're repulsed by their crusty old people methods of getting sh!t done... which basically is "my way or the highway." We've grown up with older people telling us what do our entire lives and now that we are working and earning our own income and own our own homes and vehicles and assets, we are ready to make our own decisions about our own lives and families... but the old crusty folk aren't ready to relinquish the power they've held over us kids our entire lives. So, where's our loyalty? To our own ideals, not to a party.

Disclaimer: Not saying all you old farts are old farts. Well, you are, but at least you are political crony old farts.

Disclaimer two: I am a registered Republican for one and only one reason: Because Oklahoma does not have open primaries and I want to vote in the primary where all of the elected officials are determined.

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 10:41 AM
The Republican race to the bottom continues unabated.

SoonerAtKU
2/17/2012, 11:01 AM
I would like it if the campaigning process consisted of a 10 page report hand written by each candidate. They would be answering a series of questions about government, leadership, and policy stances. Then, we could vote for the report we felt best represented our wants and needs for the next time frame. The revolutionary idea is that, upon election, the elected officials are then forced to publicly consult their own report and reference it with proper citation format during any speech on a policy decision. Congress must also cite the relevant sections of their report when issuing a vote on any legislation to prove that their position is internally consistent.

Failure to do so results in expulsion from the post.

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 11:09 AM
I would like it if the campaigning process consisted of a 10 page report hand written by each candidate. They would be answering a series of questions about government, leadership, and policy stances. Then, we could vote for the report we felt best represented our wants and needs for the next time frame. The revolutionary idea is that, upon election, the elected officials are then forced to publicly consult their own report and reference it with proper citation format during any speech on a policy decision. Congress must also cite the relevant sections of their report when issuing a vote on any legislation to prove that their position is internally consistent.

Failure to do so results in expulsion from the post.

I'd go for that.

I'd also go for entirely publicly financed elections with campaigns that last two weeks.

This needing millions of dollars to run for office for 2 years ahead of an election entirely corrupts the systems and makes both parties beholden to monied interests (corporations or unions)

Take the money out of it and make it about policy.

C&CDean
2/17/2012, 11:14 AM
The Republican race to the bottom continues unabated.

They've got a long way to go to get down as far as your boy.

BTW, what instrument did you play in the Pride? My guess? Bonerphone. Or perhaps Skin Flute.

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 11:19 AM
They've got a long way to go to get down as far as your boy.

BTW, what instrument did you play in the Pride? My guess? Bonerphone. Or perhaps Skin Flute.

ah gay jokes. They're always so fresh.

SoonerAtKU
2/17/2012, 11:27 AM
I'd go for that.

I'd also go for entirely publicly financed elections with campaigns that last two weeks.

This needing millions of dollars to run for office for 2 years ahead of an election entirely corrupts the systems and makes both parties beholden to monied interests (corporations or unions)

Take the money out of it and make it about policy.Indeed. I'd rather not even have to know what my candidate looks like. I don't even really need to know their names. Candidate #36. Good handwriting. Solid policy. Let's do it.

The policy papers could be released 3 weeks before election day to give everyone time to read them and analyze their impact. Then we vote.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/17/2012, 11:29 AM
I do. I absolutely hate this godforsaken party that I've always called home. No serious conservative could ever be enthusiastic about voting for the bottom dwelling pond scum that populate its ranks from the lowliest city official in a town the size of a zit on a flea's *** to the so-called crème de la crème vying to become the next Czar of this American Empire.

I loathe that statists control the party and brazingly point their hypocritical finger at liberal statists and accuse others of what they themselves are shamefully guilty of. I loathe the fact that so many of its candidates dare call themselves conservatives while they have spent their careers expanding government and interfering with the personal lives of American citizens -- interfering on issues that are none of the government or society's damned business. Our so-called conservatives make careers out of regulating the personal liberty of American citizens in the same way liberals make careers out of regulating the economic liberty of American citizens. It is hard not to become furious at a party that is downright hostile to the educated, to women, and to those citizens who do not share Judeo-Christian beliefs that so many in the party incorrectly point to as the basis of our once great civilization. The GOP has violated our trust with money, with our personal liberty, and even with our property (*cough* TTC *cough*). This is a party that has created and expanded a fascistic police state and made it a policy goal to perpetuate a never ending war against a tactic that can never be beaten in a conflict that will never be won against people who have done us no harm (those who have notwithstanding).

This is a party that was born to serve the interests of the banking system, big business, and those who wanted a strong, powerful, and highly centralized government. There are those in the party who are being oppressed by the policies of the central banking system, who believe in local-state control of their affiars, but who are nonetheless supportive of this party. People wonder why nothing ever changes in Washington regardless of who wins an election, and the answer is crystal-clear. There is no fundamental difference between the Republican Party and Democrat Party. The difference is of policy not of philosophy or ideology. The difference is the degree to which each exploits the powers of the government to oppress the people, but both accept the credibility and legitimacy of the power of the state to curb the liberty of the citizenry.

Nothing is going to change in this party. It needs to die. The statists need a party unto themselves regardless of what flavor of statist they happen to be. Those who love and believe in liberty must stop supporting a political party that is hostile to those beliefs. The party must die. The party must be replaced. The GOP must join its forerunner, the Whigs, in the ash heap of history. If the Republican Party were a house, I'd be an arsonist who douses it in gasoline and gleefully strikes a match and watches it burn.


I came to this realization about 6 years ago. I too used to be a died in the wool Republican supporter. I supported W through his endless wars, patriot act, medicare entitlement expansion, expansion of the fed govt's role in education and faith based initiatives crap.

I think it was Katrina that crystallized the utter failure of Big Government in my mind and the expansion of gov't under a Republican administration and Congress made me realize that both parties were for Big Gov't.

Curly Bill
2/17/2012, 11:30 AM
Indeed. I'd rather not even have to know what my candidate looks like. I don't even really need to know their names. Candidate #36. Good handwriting. Solid policy. Let's do it.

The policy papers could be released 3 weeks before election day to give everyone time to read them and analyze their impact. Then we vote.

You do realize how stupid a large portion of the American populace is right?

...but then maybe that would cut down on the stupid people vote, count me in!

Bourbon St Sooner
2/17/2012, 11:32 AM
The Republican race to the bottom continues unabated.

Did you ever think that you would be singing the praises of a health plan that is basically a giveaway to Big Pharma and the insurance industry? You're the same as all the other lemmings. Spewing the party line.

Curly Bill
2/17/2012, 11:34 AM
Did you ever think that you would be singing the praises of a health plan that is basically a giveaway to Big Pharma and the insurance industry? You're the same as all the other lemmings. Spewing the party line.

He's unashamed welfare trash. We hashed this out the other day.

C&CDean
2/17/2012, 11:37 AM
ah gay jokes. They're always so fresh.

It wasn't a gay joke. It was a commentary on the rubbish you cut/paste on here. You are the antithesis of cruiser - with a slightly more civil tongue. Cut. Paste. Insult. Repeat. FWIW, both of you suck.

KantoSooner
2/17/2012, 11:57 AM
SicEm!!!! Sing it brother. And NEVER, NEVER accept someone else redefining what you are. You are a conservative and, indeed, a Republican. The azzholes who took over the party following Goldwater's defeat are the ones who changed the party. And make no mistake: The party changed, you did not.
It may be too late to take the party back from the political hacks and culture war jackals, but the values that once were the party never go out of style.

it's simple, really: minimalist government is best. That's in the direction of Libertarianism, but is not the same. It's what the Republican Party once stood for. Stand by that.

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 11:58 AM
It wasn't a gay joke. It was a commentary on the rubbish you cut/paste on here. You are the antithesis of cruiser - with a slightly more civil tongue. Cut. Paste. Insult. Repeat. FWIW, both of you suck.

Okay.

TUSooner
2/17/2012, 12:06 PM
I could have sworn I posted these HL Mencken gems earlier. They come to mind regularly when I read the political threads:


Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right.


When a candidate for public office faces the voters... he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand.

I have always leaned to the GOP though I have always registered as an independent (to avoid blame?). I never liked the blatant statism of the welfare-state Dems. But I have come to truly detest the GOP. Partly because of its hypocritical statism, but most of all because it has become anti-science and anti-intellectual, and it shamelessly caters to the basest and dimmest emotions of the mob that, as Mencken said, fears nothing quite as much as an idea that it cannot understand. It's a shame that so many decent people get suckered by these cynical bast*rds just because they think they will represent their values, when the only value most politicians respect is influence and money.

SoonerPride
2/17/2012, 12:07 PM
Did you ever think that you would be singing the praises of a health plan that is basically a giveaway to Big Pharma and the insurance industry? You're the same as all the other lemmings. Spewing the party line.

I would have much preferred a single payer system.

But since that was nixed, I can live with the fall back position which was the GOP proposal throughout the 1990s.

JohnnyMack
2/17/2012, 12:14 PM
You do realize how stupid a large portion of the American populace is right?

...but then maybe that would cut down on the stupid people vote, count me in!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/026/479/morans.jpg

SoonerTerry
2/17/2012, 12:46 PM
Indeed. I'd rather not even have to know what my candidate looks like. I don't even really need to know their names. Candidate #36. Good handwriting. Solid policy. Let's do it.

The policy papers could be released 3 weeks before election day to give everyone time to read them and analyze their impact. Then we vote.

The scariest thing in the world to a career politician is an informed voter

SoonerTerry
2/17/2012, 12:50 PM
It seems to me that the only time politicians do what we want is when they are worried about loosing their jobs.. ie pipa

TUSooner
2/17/2012, 12:53 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/026/479/morans.jpg
Any doubt Mencken was right?


The scariest thing in the world to a career politician is an informed voterFortunately for the pols, the system does not leave much room for thought, our alternatives are generally Dumb or Dumber. The pols know this.

pphilfran
2/17/2012, 12:56 PM
I don't give a chit about the issues...

I am voting against all incumbents....

KantoSooner
2/17/2012, 12:58 PM
And our congressional contingent would most definitely prove them to be absolutely correct. Seriously, look up photos of our congressmen and senators (non-caps very much intentional). They look like a collection of used car salesmen....from a failing agency on the wrong side of town.
And that impression is before they start talking (surprisingly, yes, they speak; and in almost grammatical sentences!).

SoonerAtKU
2/17/2012, 01:16 PM
The scariest thing in the world to a career politician is an informed voter

Yup, and we'd have about the same percentage of people who would use that as an opportunity to educate themselves and vote accordingly.

TUSooner
2/17/2012, 01:24 PM
I don't give a chit about the issues...

I am voting against all incumbents....


Same ****, different name.

I would be OK voting for Tom Coburn, I think. Not that I agree with him on all points, but because he does not seem like a party slave. He seems a bit above the playground politics of a shill like, say, Boehner or Cantor.

badger
2/17/2012, 01:51 PM
The scariest thing in the world to a career politician is an informed voter

Other scary thoughts of career politicians:

1- Town hall meetings. Seriously, they hate meeting their constituents, especially the ones that attend town halls. If they weren't expected of elected officials, they'd probably never do them.

2- High voter turnout. Voters hardly ever show up and elected officials count on it. The less voters they have to court, the better.

3- Technology. Because it informs and energizes voters to take action at the voting booths. And it usually leads to embarrassment (youtube clips, staffer tweets, facebook photos, etc).

4- Open Records Requests. It would be soooo much easier to not be held accountable for everything they use that is funded by taxpayer funds... like email. And flight records. And the La-Z-Boy recliners our office purchases every month.

5- Campaign Finance Reform. Reporting every donation that is over $50 is such a drag. Now my campaign is attached to David Walters, Bernard Madoff and Jack Abramoff. Gah. I hate dealing with this stuff as much as the special interests.

dwarthog
2/17/2012, 04:03 PM
I could have sworn I posted these HL Mencken gems earlier. They come to mind regularly when I read the political threads:





I have always leaned to the GOP though I have always registered as an independent (to avoid blame?). I never liked the blatant statism of the welfare-state Dems. But I have come to truly detest the GOP. Partly because of its hypocritical statism, but most of all because it has become anti-science and anti-intellectual, and it shamelessly caters to the basest and dimmest emotions of the mob that, as Mencken said, fears nothing quite as much as an idea that it cannot understand. It's a shame that so many decent people get suckered by these cynical bast*rds just because they think they will represent their values, when the only value most politicians respect is influence and money.

If your saying the environmentalists who chain themselves to trees, climb trees and stay in them for months, wail over vegetables that have been unceremoniously jerked from the ground while still alive comprise a brain trust, then I'll have to beg to differ on that one.

pphilfran
2/17/2012, 04:25 PM
Same ****, different name.

I would be OK voting for Tom Coburn, I think. Not that I agree with him on all points, but because he does not seem like a party slave. He seems a bit above the playground politics of a shill like, say, Boehner or Cantor.

I like Coburn...a lot, but if he were up for election I would toss him out with the rest...

As voters we must send a message the the current Congress's inability to compromise on issues is unacceptable...

Vote em all out....if they don't perform we vote the next bunch out...sooner or later we might beat it into their heads that we, the voters, the people they work for, are serious about getting issues resolved on a timely basis and are sick and tired of their partisan stance....

StoopTroup
2/17/2012, 05:15 PM
I don't put near as much thought into it as Sicem, but I'm pretty much disgusted as well. If the bozos we've got running are the best we've got, well then **** it all. In the A.

The closest thing to someone I might vote for is Gingrich, but all he is is a Bill Clinton wannabe. I'm kind of surprised the lefties don't dig on him.

I'm not sure the lefties are in charge. I think the lefties are becoming afraid they have elected a Rightie thinking POTUS.

They all seem pretty confused and just IMO....it's because they all keep running their campaigns trying to do a balancing act where they can try and keep 51% of everybody scared to death.

StoopTroup
2/17/2012, 05:19 PM
I like Coburn...a lot, but if he were up for election I would toss him out with the rest...

As voters we must send a message the the current Congress's inability to compromise on issues is unacceptable...

Vote em all out....if they don't perform we vote the next bunch out...sooner or later we might beat it into their heads that we, the voters, the people they work for, are serious about getting issues resolved on a timely basis and are sick and tired of their partisan stance....

I'd almost agree with that but somehow the last bunch of folks that got elected thought they were sent to DC to Save the World via the Tea Party. They were sent to try and help America.....not hold up progress. They were supposed to do things that were good for the Country....not sign agreements with Super Pacs.

As long as we send some folks to find solutions instead of use insider trading to make themselves rich....you could be onto something.

cccasooner2
2/17/2012, 05:58 PM
http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/02/09/004-138518537-jpg_235940.jpg

I take it you're not in this picture SicEm. :D

StoopTroup
2/17/2012, 06:03 PM
http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/02/09/004-138518537-jpg_235940.jpg

I take it you're not in this picture SicEm. :D

I think that when it comes to SicEm's Moped.....Col. Mustard did it in the Ballroom and Layed Hands on it.

47straight
2/17/2012, 06:52 PM
It is hard not to become furious at a party that is downright hostile to the educated,


Hostile to the educated? You mean like college drop-outs who tag their "I HATE ___" posts with an icon of a man with a college degree?

47straight
2/17/2012, 06:58 PM
I could have sworn I posted these HL Mencken gems earlier. They come to mind regularly when I read the political threads:





I have always leaned to the GOP though I have always registered as an independent (to avoid blame?). I never liked the blatant statism of the welfare-state Dems. But I have come to truly detest the GOP. Partly because of its hypocritical statism, but most of all because it has become anti-science and anti-intellectual, and it shamelessly caters to the basest and dimmest emotions of the mob that, as Mencken said, fears nothing quite as much as an idea that it cannot understand. It's a shame that so many decent people get suckered by these cynical bast*rds just because they think they will represent their values, when the only value most politicians respect is influence and money.


Hmm. It's the opposite for me. I never liked the whoring for business interests in the Republican party and believed that the Democrats were on the everyman's side. Not anymore. The democratic party hates Joe Paycheck. Sneers at him. The party of legislating-morality-but-not-your-morality. Double-speak and hypocrisy. Not interested in helping people, interested only in consolidating power and eliminating civil society as a competitor to its own ends.

StoopTroup
2/17/2012, 07:13 PM
I do. I absolutely hate this godforsaken party that I've always called home. No serious conservative could ever be enthusiastic about voting for the bottom dwelling pond scum that populate its ranks from the lowliest city official in a town the size of a zit on a flea's *** to the so-called crème de la crème vying to become the next Czar of this American Empire.

I loathe that statists control the party and brazingly point their hypocritical finger at liberal statists and accuse others of what they themselves are shamefully guilty of. I loathe the fact that so many of its candidates dare call themselves conservatives while they have spent their careers expanding government and interfering with the personal lives of American citizens -- interfering on issues that are none of the government or society's damned business. Our so-called conservatives make careers out of regulating the personal liberty of American citizens in the same way liberals make careers out of regulating the economic liberty of American citizens. It is hard not to become furious at a party that is downright hostile to the educated, to women, and to those citizens who do not share Judeo-Christian beliefs that so many in the party incorrectly point to as the basis of our once great civilization. The GOP has violated our trust with money, with our personal liberty, and even with our property (*cough* TTC *cough*). This is a party that has created and expanded a fascistic police state and made it a policy goal to perpetuate a never ending war against a tactic that can never be beaten in a conflict that will never be won against people who have done us no harm (those who have notwithstanding).

This is a party that was born to serve the interests of the banking system, big business, and those who wanted a strong, powerful, and highly centralized government. There are those in the party who are being oppressed by the policies of the central banking system, who believe in local-state control of their affiars, but who are nonetheless supportive of this party. People wonder why nothing ever changes in Washington regardless of who wins an election, and the answer is crystal-clear. There is no fundamental difference between the Republican Party and Democrat Party. The difference is of policy not of philosophy or ideology. The difference is the degree to which each exploits the powers of the government to oppress the people, but both accept the credibility and legitimacy of the power of the state to curb the liberty of the citizenry.

Nothing is going to change in this party. It needs to die. The statists need a party unto themselves regardless of what flavor of statist they happen to be. Those who love and believe in liberty must stop supporting a political party that is hostile to those beliefs. The party must die. The party must be replaced. The GOP must join its forerunner, the Whigs, in the ash heap of history. If the Republican Party were a house, I'd be an arsonist who douses it in gasoline and gleefully strikes a match and watches it burn.


BTW....that's some Heavy Green Panther **** right there. Congratulations. You have now graduated into the ranks of people who voted for Perot and left the GOP after Bush I.

StoopTroup
2/17/2012, 07:20 PM
Hmm. It's the opposite for me. I never liked the whoring for business interests in the Republican party and believed that the Democrats were on the everyman's side. Not anymore. The democratic party hates Joe Paycheck. Sneers at him. The party of legislating-morality-but-not-your-morality. Double-speak and hypocrisy. Not interested in helping people, interested only in consolidating power and eliminating civil society as a competitor to its own ends.







Declared 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate
Pro-life Activist

Randall Terry (http://2012.democratic-candidates.org/Terry)







http://battle.info/POLITICS/PRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATES/images/candidates/2012/Randall-Terry.gif

At a glance, it may seem a little odd for a pro-life and anti-LGBT candidate to run for the
Democratic nomination. A closer look however, would tell us that an estimated 30-40% of Democrats actually shares the 52-year old Terry’s views. And for those who consider this as nothing more than a publicity stunt by an anti-abortionist radical, think again. Randall Terry is planning to spend close to $3 million for a 30-second slot in the 2012 Super Bowl.

It is rare, but there have been instances when a sitting president is challenged from within the party for a presidential nomination. Randal A. Terry’s decision to throw down the gauntlet to President Obama may be a surprise to many, but not to those that know the man.

His story started sometime back in 1986, when Terry, from his Great Buy Used Cars lot at 1020 Front St. Vestal in Binghamton, planned ‘Operation Rescue’ with Daniel J. Little, his pastor from the Church at Pierce Creek. ‘Operation Rescue’ was infamous for its sieges of abortion clinics, aggressive protesting techniques and the ‘go limp’ blockade maneuver. It elevated the previously unknown Terry into the most well-known pro-life activist in the country, and earning himself the image of a political militant in the process.

A quarter of a century and over forty arrests since, Terry is still going strong, albeit, without the radicalism prevalent during the early years of his activism. Perhaps the conviction of former Operation Rescue alumni, James Charles Kopp, for the murder of pro-choice physician Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998, together with the heightening legal assault by his pro-choice opponents and the over 20,000 arrest of the movement supporters, forced a strategy review.

The three pronged approach that he envisioned in the fall of 1983 (blockade of clinics, counseling of mothers and shelter for the unwed mothers) was clearly not yielding the results he was hoping for. Changing times calls for innovation, and Terry did exactly that. He was reborn as a touring speaker, author and media personality, an approach that has once again pushed him to the forefront of the debate.

He took the giant leap of submitting his papers to the Federal Election Commission on January 18 this year and four days later said, “This campaign is about human rights, ladies and gentlemen. It will be first and foremost about the human rights of babies that are being brutally slaughtered and thrown in dumpsters and landfills. But it is also about the human rights of the slave labor force on Obama's plantation.”

By all accounts, Terry does not even hold a shadow of a chance, but there are worries that the former Republican could force Obama to alienate a significant chunk of the Democrats by publicly engaging Terry.

http://terryforpresident.com/

cccasooner2
2/17/2012, 07:22 PM
I'm not sure the lefties are in charge. I think the lefties are becoming afraid they have elected a Rightie thinking POTUS.

They all seem pretty confused and just IMO....it's because they all keep running their campaigns trying to do a balancing act where they can try and keep 51% of everybody scared to death.

I think wallstreet calls it "climbing the wall of worry".

StoopTroup
2/17/2012, 07:24 PM
“This campaign is about human rights, ladies and gentlemen. It will be first and foremost about the human rights of babies that are being brutally slaughtered and thrown in dumpsters and landfills. But it is also about the human rights of the slave labor force on Obama's plantation.”

SicEmBaylor
2/17/2012, 11:34 PM
BTW....that's some Heavy Green Panther **** right there. Congratulations. You have now graduated into the ranks of people who voted for Perot and left the GOP after Bush I.

The first time I didn't vote straight ticket Republican was in '08. I voted for 9 Libertarians, 9 Republicans, and 1 Democrat. I've never felt better about my choices in all my life.

And this shouldn't even need to be said again at t his point, but I sure as **** didn't vote for McCain. Bob Barr was my man.

SicEmBaylor
2/18/2012, 12:13 AM
“This campaign is about human rights, ladies and gentlemen. It will be first and foremost about the human rights of babies that are being brutally slaughtered and thrown in dumpsters and landfills. But it is also about the human rights of the slave labor force on Obama's plantation.”
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071223073445/uncyclopedia/images/0/08/Picard-wtf.jpg

StoopTroup
2/18/2012, 12:48 AM
It's your choice for Democrat of you decide not to vote for Obama. :D

cccasooner2
2/18/2012, 10:44 AM
I stole this off of a LGG smell like a hooker story commentary.

Obama and Bush are both getting a hair cut & shave at the same place. Afterwards the barber asks Obama if he would like some aftershave, to which he replies, "No way, Michelle always says that stuff makes me smell like I was at a whore house". So then the barber asks Bush the same question and he says, "Sure, slap some of that stuff on me, Laura has no idea what a whore house smells like".

soonercoop1
2/19/2012, 10:06 AM
BTW....that's some Heavy Green Panther **** right there. Congratulations. You have now graduated into the ranks of people who voted for Perot and left the GOP after Bush I.

Many of us left after Bush I...both parties are essentially the same now; same actions but different rhetoric...only way to really change the Repub party is to keep the leadership in the south and out of the north where the RINOS reside...

cccasooner2
2/19/2012, 08:54 PM
I think that when it comes to SicEm's Moped.....Col. Mustard did it in the Ballroom and Layed Hands on it.

A Moped is SicEm's way to bring down the Republican Party? It just might work.

SicEmBaylor
2/20/2012, 07:50 AM
Truthiness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=share

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 09:25 AM
“This campaign is about human rights, ladies and gentlemen. It will be first and foremost about the human rights of babies that are being brutally slaughtered and thrown in dumpsters and landfills. But it is also about the human rights of the slave labor force on Obama's plantation.”

...and this is why the GOP is incapable of having an intelligent debate and why thinking people will not support or tolerate this sort of posturing in the party's leadership. The flat-Earthers somehow came into power and have stooped to catering to the lowest common denominator. If it wasn't the sort of threat which could see this country turned into a religious fundamentalist state, I'd almost be entertained.

47straight
2/20/2012, 04:50 PM
...and this is why the GOP is incapable of having an intelligent debate and why thinking people will not support or tolerate this sort of posturing in the party's leadership. The flat-Earthers somehow came into power and have stooped to catering to the lowest common denominator. If it wasn't the sort of threat which could see this country turned into a religious fundamentalist state, I'd almost be entertained.

Oh I see. "Incapable of having an intelligent debate" = "disagrees with me."


And this is why the fauxgressives and the "tolerant" are incapable of having civil debate. Indeed, "thinking people" (that is, people who agree with Midtowner) won't tolerate anyone with divergent views. But of course they'll pontificate and spin to pretend it's the other side that's posturing, not them.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

"Religious fundamentalist state."

Oh there won't be any of that when you beat it out of those nasty theocrats at camp. Right, counselor?

Midtowner
2/20/2012, 05:07 PM
Oh I see. "Incapable of having an intelligent debate" = "disagrees with me."

No, I mean disagrees with facts. For example, evolution, climate change, science in general. The GOP, at least this new wing of the GOP is hostile to facts. You can't have an intelligent debate with someone who doesn't process facts as being facts.


And this is why the fauxgressives and the "tolerant" are incapable of having civil debate. Indeed, "thinking people" (that is, people who agree with Midtowner) won't tolerate anyone with divergent views. But of course they'll pontificate and spin to pretend it's the other side that's posturing, not them.

You said tolerant, I sure as hell didn't. I have no tolerance for people who deny basic facts and want to impose their religious views on the rest of us at the point of a gun.


Oh there won't be any of that when you beat it out of those nasty theocrats at camp. Right, counselor?

I want you to be able to practice your religion and have absolute freedom to do that within the bounds of state and federal laws which do not discriminate against your religion without either a compelling state interest or an even-handed secular reason for doing so (e.g., not allowing you to smoke peyote). I also want your practicing religion to not have any effect because of the government or the way your religion manipulates the government whatsoever on everyone who doesn't practice your religion.

And the above sort of dishonest fact-denying, ignorant bashing is just why there is no civil debate with you people.

I mean, let's parse the size-7 text to see what we can find which even has an inkling of truth to it. You people just make stuff up:


“This campaign is about human rights, ladies and gentlemen. It will be first and foremost about the human rights of babies that are being brutally slaughtered and thrown in dumpsters and landfills.

Mostly, disposed of fetuses are being disposed of as medical waste. Yes, there are some cases where that didn't happen and those people were punished. That aside, fetuses don't have rights because the law (I said the law, I GAS what you think) doesn't recognize the pre-born as human. The current state of the law is that the mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. At that point, the states can do whatever they want because their compelling state interest in protecting life kicks in, to proscribe terminating the pregnancy unless that is going to harm the health of the mother. There is no intellectual debate here because the debate is all over the definition of life and humanity, none of which anyone will ever agree on. The law is the law though and no President, no matter how pro-life/anti-choice he or she is has the power to overturn the Supreme Court.

In other words, as to this point, it's a bunch of emotional, graphic rhetoric which is about settled federal case law which the President is powerless to overturn.


But it is also about the human rights of the slave labor force on Obama's plantation.”

And this is just offensive and indefensible. The imagery here is race baiting, graphic, intended to produce a visceral and emotional response. Too bad many people will read this and have the response that the writer is a certified loon.

GrapevineSooner
2/22/2012, 05:18 PM
You know, I switched my part affiliation in 2008 from Republican to Democrat, but that's simply because I wanted a say in my state's primary.

Four years later, I have no intention of switching it back. That's not to say I consider myself a Democrat. But for the same reasons Sic 'Em posted, I can't call myself a Republican and still be true to my own libertarian beliefs.

I just wish we had a party that was focused more on fiscal conservatism and much less on the ideals of what I like to call theological socialism.

I have no issues with Christians or Christianity. I actually consider myself quite spiritual. That doesn't mean I think every one else should practice it.

soonercoop1
2/22/2012, 06:32 PM
Truthiness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk&feature=share

Did he get fired for that? Noticed his show isn't on anymore. Liked him cause he was honest and pretty much right about everything.

SicEmBaylor
2/22/2012, 06:41 PM
Did he get fired for that? Noticed his show isn't on anymore. Liked him cause he was honest and pretty much right about everything.
Supposedly ratings, but I suspect that Fox News objected to the fact that his show became a forum to promote Ron Paul.

OhU1
2/22/2012, 07:22 PM
No, I mean disagrees with facts. For example, evolution, climate change, science in general. The GOP, at least this new wing of the GOP is hostile to facts. You can't have an intelligent debate with someone who doesn't process facts as being facts.
I have no tolerance for people who deny basic facts and want to impose their religious views on the rest of us at the point of a gun.

The flat-Earthers somehow came into power and have stooped to catering to the lowest common denominator.


^^^^^^^ Why I'll probably have a hard time voting Republican anymore.

47straight
2/22/2012, 10:51 PM
You said tolerant, I sure as hell didn't. I have no tolerance for people who deny basic facts and want to impose their religious views on the rest of us at the point of a gun.

You have no tolerance for people who want to, in your view, impose their religious views, using the same democratic process that you do to impose your views on them.

In other words, you have no tolerance who do the same thing you do, but do it based on their own values and not yours.


I want you to be able to practice your religion and have absolute freedom to do that within the bounds of state and federal laws which do not discriminate against your religion without either a compelling state interest or an even-handed secular reason for doing so (e.g., not allowing you to smoke peyote). I also want your practicing religion to not have any effect because of the government or the way your religion manipulates the government whatsoever on everyone who doesn't practice your religion.

Allowed to practice religion as long it has no effect anywhere in society nor influences how they vote. Got it. Thanks for the really long leash. Narrowing of freedom of religion into "freedom of worship" isn't freedom of religion.



And the above sort of dishonest fact-denying, ignorant bashing is just why there is no civil debate with you people.
http://drkronner.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/you-people.jpg

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 11:46 PM
You have no tolerance for people who want to, in your view, impose their religious views, using the same democratic process that you do to impose your views on them.

In other words, you have no tolerance who do the same thing you do, but do it based on their own values and not yours.

Nope. I don't want to impose my values on you. You can behave however you want to so long as it doesn't affect me. Once you affect me, my tolerance level goes to zero and I go on the warpath. It's really pretty simple. If you don't want to marry a dude or get an abortion, don't. Just don't tell me what to do.


Allowed to practice religion as long it has no effect anywhere in society nor influences how they vote. Got it. Thanks for the really long leash. Narrowing of freedom of religion into "freedom of worship" isn't freedom of religion.

Simple enough. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 11:48 PM
Did he get fired for that? Noticed his show isn't on anymore. Liked him cause he was honest and pretty much right about everything.

I agree it was a great rant. The scary part is that most of it if not all of it is true.

hawaii 5-0
2/22/2012, 11:50 PM
Don't get mad at the GOP. They're just tryin' a make an honest buck.

5-0

TVKaleen
2/23/2012, 02:26 PM
That aside, fetuses don't have rights because the law (I said the law, I GAS what you think) doesn't recognize the pre-born as human.

Funny thing about the law.. it does sometimes consider a fetus to be human.

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101592/Justin-Adams-Husband-pregnant-Craigslist-hooker-Jaymie-Adams-charged-murder.html

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/accused-killer-mark-cox-charged-murder-pregnant-co/nHLCp/

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-pregnant-fetus-killed-suspect-sought,0,2386324.story

As far as unviable outside the womb, my daughter was born 22 weeks premature and is now 12. I am certain that the edge of viability number has grown even larger with 12 years of medical advancements. So the viability arguement for not considering the fetus as human is growing weaker and shorter due to science and medicine.

Midtowner
2/23/2012, 02:51 PM
As far as unviable outside the womb, my daughter was born 22 weeks premature and is now 12. I am certain that the edge of viability number has grown even larger with 12 years of medical advancements. So the viability arguement for not considering the fetus as human is growing weaker and shorter due to science and medicine.

I'm fine with that.

soonercoop1
2/23/2012, 06:31 PM
I agree it was a great rant. The scary part is that most of it if not all of it is true.

Been saying that for years...

LiveLaughLove
2/23/2012, 07:07 PM
So I guess we can agree that partial birth abortion is murder then? Since it is a completely viable human being and all? Or is that imposing my religious views on too many people also?

How about botched abortions where the baby lives, and is then placed in a closet until it dies? Is that murder or just the continuation of an abortion? Obama thinks it's cool since the mother didn't want it. So is that a viable living human being or is that still just a clump of tissue with no legal rights?

If it's a human being (which obviously it is) then is Obama an enabler to mass murder? Let me answer that one for Chris, you better believe it!

I'm tired of all of the Republican bashing. How about all of the Democrats (which is a majority of them on Capital Hill) that support both of these infanticide measures?

I heard for years, the screams of the left about how we tortured those poor terrorists, but nary a peep about the slaughter of our own viable outside the womb children, or how the Democrats support that slaughter for power and votes.

I'll take Bush's water boarding any day over Obama's infanticide.

8timechamps
2/23/2012, 07:42 PM
You do realize how stupid a large portion of the American populace is right?

...but then maybe that would cut down on the stupid people vote, count me in!

Nailed it.

The vast majority of the American populace know little more about a candidate than his/her name and party affiliation. "voting the party line" is as alive and well as it always has been. The people that choose to know more about the candidates will always find themselves at odds with some aspect of his/her platform/policy. The rest will vote based on what their parent/grandparents always voted.