jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (87 posts)

Republican Hypocrisy

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Why does the ostensible party of liberty abandon the principle whenever the situation becomes uncomfortable?

    Examples are:

    Marijuana

    Gay Marriage

    Patriot Act

    Torture

    Indefinite Detention (so much for a speedy and fair trial)

    Calling for the firing of liberal professors

    Controlling women's bodies

    Forcing ONE interpretation of a religion (conservative Christianity) as the only viable one the state should even recognize

    Banning books (Arizona's banning of books in the controversial ethnic studies program)

    Why, I must ask, is the mindless curbing of liberty being pushed by the Republican party?  Why does the Tea Party not speak out more against these injustices!?!?!!?

    There is not true commitment to liberty in the majority of the GOP, whether it be in speech or action.  It's laughable they would even claim to be the party of freedom!

    If you are a person of the right, vote for Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate.  Otherwise, stop pretending to care about liberty when you actually care about it very little, and that is when it affects your pocketbook.  It makes you look more like you are greedy than committed to an otherwise noble principle.

    1. Shadesbreath profile image90
      Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For the same reason the party that would liberate us abandon their ideals when:

      Second amendment

      The right to keep the wealth you earn

      Where you go to school

      What you eat

      How much tax you have to pay for that evil cigarette you smoke

      Whether you can have a wood burning fire

      Whether you can ride your motorcycle without a helmet

      Whether you can gather firewood when you camp

      What you can say out loud about someone else

      What you can write

      How much a company can pay its employees

      Etc.

      I'm not even saying you are wrong in the stuff you are saying, but when you try to pretend its "one party" and not the other, you are actually contributing to the problem.

      It's not "us" against "them."  It's the stupid mindless idiot sheep on one side being sent against the stupid mindless idiot sheep on the other side. The shepherds from BOTH sides actually hang out and drink together at the same really, really expensive restaurants in Washington. Year after year after year, while people like you and me make lame arguments like the one you started this thread with.

      Wake up.

      The parties are evil, not the people in them... at least not the regular people. The leadership should all be horsewhipped and thrown out of the country, but that's another conversation all together.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, Shades.  My father-in-law gave me a horsewhip the day I was married - maybe I should dig it out and head for the statehouse.

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This is irrelevant to my argument.

        I am simply pointing out hypocrisy in the party that claims to be the beacon of freedom.  The Democrats don't run around yelling about how they are all about liberty the way the Republicans do.

        I don't necessarily see liberty so much as an end in itself as an instrumental good.  It just gives us a better society.

        But taxing billionaires like Bill Gates, who couldn't even spend all of their money if they tried (unless they literally just threw it away or donated ALL of it to the federal government), is not equivalent in terms of restrictiveness as what the Republican party does with gay marriage, abortion, or banning books.

        Democrats aren't the ones who elect theocrats to run for office.  Obama also hasn't signed any new gun restrictions into law.  It's actually now legal to carry a gun in a national park!

        1. Shadesbreath profile image90
          Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, you brushed aside my point, which, I feel is a much bigger point than the one you are making. I'm not even saying the one you are making is not correct. Yes, the repubs are idiots and hypocrites, congrats, you win that argument.

          Now, to a bigger issue. THEY ARE ALL HYPOCRITES, and the system is broken. Who gives a crap what they call themselves... the side of freedom, the side of liberty, the side fairness, kindness, social responsibility... it's all crap.

          You trying to prove the democrats are better than the republicans is like trying to prove it's better to die by hanging than by firing squad.

          1. Shanna11 profile image91
            Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are a glittering fountain of eloquent truth. +1

          2. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            One party feels it's morally acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals, and also denies scientific findings.  Even if both of them are ridiculous, one is much less so than the other.

            1. Shadesbreath profile image90
              Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you are a loyal servant of the institution then. Clearly you are going to keep focusing on the symptoms, oblivious to or incapable of fathoming the disease. Most of the founding fathers knew we couldn't keep freedom though, so, I really shouldn't let stuff like this bother me.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You didn't address the substance of what I said at all.

                Does the modern Republican party support the equality of homosexuals or not?

                1. Shadesbreath profile image90
                  Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And you are only proving my point more and more every time you cling to this "argument" you are making.

                  Do you actually think anyone on the planet doesn't know how the republican party (at least a huge chunk of it) feels about that?

                  And while I will yet again tell you that you are correct in pointing out the glaringly obvious, you are still missing the real problem, which is that BOTH "sides" are feeding their constituencies hot-button issues and they, like you, eat it up like a trained dogs. Both sides have people like you trained to watch the bouncing ball, and you keep doing tricks for them thinking you'll get a treat some day. Woof woof, republicans hate the gays, woof woof.

                  Woof woof, from across the fence... Woof Woof they want to take your social security...

                  Meanwhile, the guys who own the Purina factory and Petsmart are laughing at you and talking about you behind your back while they play another round of golf and figure out how to sell your puppies to someone else.

                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No my friend.  I'm sorry you don't seem to understand exactly what discrimination is.  It saddens me.  You should read up on how a lot of gay people are treated, especially in the red states.  I guess it's like the whites who were somewhat sympathetic to African Americans, but having such a small world, they didn't give much more than lip service to fighting for their equality.  They didn't march, or stand up to their racist friends.  One party fighting for the equal rights of African Americans just "wasn't a major difference."

                    Furthermore, Purina and Pets Mart are laughing at you, all the way to the bank.  You support corporate crony capitalism, not freedom.  It's what the libertarian Kevin Carson calls "vulgar libertarianism."  http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq/wh … lationism. 

                    You defend these policies that sound great, WITHIN the monopolistic capitalist system, instead of a true free market.  They laugh as you are used as a pawn in a game to ensure that they can continue to take over the government, and the world.

                    Another libertarian, Sheldon Richman, makes this point, asserting, "As a consequence, the movement gives the impression that the free market equals the prevailing state capitalism. To be sure, libertarians protest taxes, regulation, and even business subsidies, but they too often defend particular actions by particular businesses (oil companies, for example), forgetting that business today is the product of years of corporatism. (This memory lapse is what “free-market anti-capitalist” writer Kevin Carson calls vulgar libertarianism.) The classic example is Ayn Rand’s much-ridiculed essay, “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business.” (But it is clear from Atlas Shrugged that she understood what corporatism is.) The impression is reinforced by the disproportionate amount of effort given to denouncing welfare for poor people and the relatively scant time devoted to opposing corporate welfare. "

                    This is why nobody takes conservative seriously, whether they be true libertarians, or liberals.  It also doesn't help they are theocrats.

                  2. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh no my friend as Sooner continues to beat the dead horse because he just cannot get you to understand that he is a progressive and as their fecal matter produces no odor they cannot in any earthly way be responsible for any sort of wrongdoing or naughtiness or whatever you would like to call it and certainly they are not guilty of fomenting hatred between the races and classes. Oh no oh no please understand if you are a progressive liberal you are just beyond that. You will have evolved. They may openly walk amongst the unicorns and they glow in the sunlight like that dude in Twilight.

                    In other words...to shorten it...they are full of male bovine fecal matter.

                  3. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
                    crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hell of a good point in your post there. I enjoyed it. Thanks Mate.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Which one is more ridiculous, then?  The one that invents bogus scientific findings to bolster their political future, or the one that denies true scientific findings in order to bolster their political future?

              The one that denies that anyone different must be somehow "converted" to their way of thinking or the one that claims everyone is but a child, needing their guidance to live "properly".

              The one that secretly encourages theft by their friends in return for money to buy votes with or the one that justifies their open theft by claiming "Robin Hood" as they steal from those of obviously lesser moral strength in order to give it to their voters.  Sorry - their "poor and needy" friends.

              Or is the most ridiculous of all Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public, who swallows the propaganda, the lies, the hypocrisy, the perfidy and the immorality of our whole political system while claiming that one identical side is superior to the other?

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What bogus scientific findings are you speaking of?  You need to be specific if you claim something like that.

                I also don't know who is claiming everyone is a child...

                Your lack of specificity really hurts your credibility.

            3. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm with you Sooner.

              There is enough in the Dem party that meets with my philosophy of life. The Blue-Dog and corporate Dems I link with Repubs....have no love for them.

              But, the basic tenents of the party are ones I can relate to.

              btw: I was an Indie for many many years. Had contempt for both parties, thought they were both corporate slags....

              Then Howard Dean ran for prez, and reminded me what it is to be a Democrat.

              More parties the better. Let's end the 2 big monopoly--they will improve for it.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Howard Dean?

                Honey there is medication for this stuff you know. I am not really trying to be mean and that was a bad joke but the Democrats will run people that make me certain I am not voting that way and Howie is definitely one of them.
                I voted for Bush for two reasons:

                Al Gore
                John Kerry.

                Aren't you glad they didn't get elected.

                Yes I think Howie reminded a lot of people what it was to be Democrat. I should know I was raised in a very staunch Democrat house and they were not him.

                1. lovemychris profile image81
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No--I wish they HAD been elected.

                  Howard Dean is great. And I happened to love the Dean Scream. I was a true Deaniac.

                  and sorry---anybody who voted for Bush and has the nerve to lecture me?....have a seat.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No there was a reason.....
                    Get away from the bulletin board with the yarn strings leading to Bush.

                    Didn't want to vote for McCain either but what choice was there?

              2. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Apparently people don't understand logical argument loveschris!

                Just because I didn't mention massive pollution, poverty, and war, they seem to believe it's not on my radar, completely disregarding all of the hubs I have written.  Making a very subtle argument about a certain narrow hypocrisy within the GOP apparently is lost on most of the conservative responders thus far.

                If people are not even going to stay on topic, I guess it's better to just respond on different forums rather than starting my own.  Very few people have actually engaged with what I was claiming.

      3. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Right on, brother!

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1 could not agree more, the concept of freedom is invoked regularly as long as it aligns with their beliefs. Santorum was in favor of making sodomy illegal comparing it to bestiality and in support of people being arrested for practicing it in their own bedrooms.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes.  I guess you could say I am fed up.  I'm tired of the Republican party hijacking liberty. 

        Liberty does not mean controlling the private decisions of every American because your religion claims what they are doing is wrong.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As Shadesbreath said, liberty does not mean controlling the pocketbooks of every American because you want to give the contents to someone else either. 

          What is it in American politics that everything revolves around controlling others?  Why can't we just leave each other alone to live as we see fit?

          I need neither the Republican Great Daddy in the Sky nor the Democrat Great Daddy in Washington to tell me how I need to live and what choices I should make.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "As Shadesbreath said, liberty does not mean controlling the pocketbooks of every American because you want to give the contents to someone else either."

            Wake up! That's what the Republicans stand for. Taking from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich. There has been a huge redistribution of wealth and income in this country since Reagan.

    3. peoplepower73 profile image87
      peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I believe both parties are corrupt because of the election cycle. The house cycle is every two years.  The senate is divided into thirds and is staggered to run every two years.  They both accept favors and contributions  from corporations and lobbyists who pay them big bucks to get them reelected so they can support lobbyists and corporations interests...not the interest of the people. To add to the corruption, lobbyists become congressman and congressman become lobbyists.

      Having said that, the Republican Party supports big business, to get them reelected by using funding from the corporations to brainwash their voting bloc, which includes the Tea Party, Conservative Christianity and people who are republicans because their parents were republicans.  They do the brainwashing via Fox News, Citizens United Super PACS, and debates. This causes their voting bloc to vote against their own best interests without even realizing they are doing it. I can give examples, but it would take up too much space. I think we all know the terms and slogans that are used.

      The reason no one goes to jail is because they have effectively removed all the laws that would cause them to be prosecuted. Bush and company made torture legal by having his Office of Legal Council re-write the laws.  The Glass-Stegal Act was removed that would prevent the exploitation of home buyers by greedy and corrupt banks and investment companies and selling toxic assets to their clients and then betting against them.

      Sorry to be so long-winded, but this is a very entangled web they have created and it requires a lot to explain it.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, I got off topic.  I got my forums mixed up.  I've read too many of them lately. But I believe what I said is still true.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm glad you admitted you got off topic, unlike some of the other posters here.  I do agree though.  I never said both parties were not corrupt.

          But it's the height of intellectual laziness to paint with a broad brush that ALL politicians are so.  Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are two examples of honest politicians, even if they have very different views of the world.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with you.  I think Bernie Sanders is a National Treasure, but he is an Independent that Caucuses with the Democrats.  I also think Buddy Romer who is a Republican is also O.K.  I should have said almost all of congress is corrupt.  Thanks for acknowledging my comments.  I think what I said went over most people's head,  But to me, it gives reason as to why we don't have representation by the people and what the Republican agenda is really about. Now that I re-read your question, I'm not sure I was off topic.  You did list torture.

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh yeah no doubt.  I'm also divided on whether politicians were corrupt before they went in, or once they got elected, power and corruption went to their heads and they abandoned their original good intentions.

              Torture is also on the list, and none of the right responders on this forum have called for Bush to be prosecuted for it.  Though, it's likely the Democrats and Republicans in Congress both knew it was occurring.  However, the Democrats are not touting it as something that should be continued.

              Bush and Cheney are openly claiming we should continue to violate the Geneva Convention, and our journalists aren't even asking them where they got the authority to do so, and why they should avoid prosecution.  But that's a failure of the media.

    4. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well for one hing Ron Paul got more attention than Gary Johnson and I am not a Paulite I'm just saying.
      No we didn't get the most conservative possible candidate. Thank the left and the media for that.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Conservatism isn't freedom.  Sorry.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I will take it over Socialism any day of the week.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Theocracy, government in your bedroom...Go to Iran if you want that.

            I'll go to Denmark, and we will see who is happier :p.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Are you kidding me?

              For one thing are you actually that frggin naive to think that's what's coming? Is that why you are willing to support what is approaching a Nazi government?
              He even has Rev. Wright dishing on him now. Noam Chomsky says he murders his enemies.


              Of course thats all bull right......

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Conservative Christians want a theocracy, and the government spying on you in your bedroom, and they want homosexuality to be illegal.  That's how Iran is.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    The definition of "liberty" seems to be very subjective, depending on which "side" you identify with.

    Shadesbreath makes some really valid points about overzealous laws ostensibly to protect us from ourselves which restrict our freedoms in other, I believe unintended, ways.

    It's kind of like one side could care less what we do in the bedroom but won't be happy till we have to wear body armor to go out of our homes.
    The other side doesn't care about anything except what happens in the bedroom.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ++++++++++.  The Republican party is akin to the authoritarian parent who enforces his/her children to believe and adhere to the same lifestyle as his/her lifestyle and the medieval inquisitor who punishes those who dare "deviate" from the prescribed lifestyle!

  3. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Not to mention their increasing the deficit with their stupid tax give-aways to multi-millionaires and billionaire's, and then complain about "welfare" given to the poor and needy.

    All these multi-married, cheating, closet-gay, women-bashing people acting like they hold the keys to morality.

    Steel claws of Judgement around your throat....while they wallow in their perverse behaviors.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Not to mention their increasing the deficit with their stupid tax" policies where half the population make no contribution to running the country.

      "All these multi-married, cheating, closet-gay, women-bashing people acting like they hold the keys to morality."

      "Steel claws of Judgement around your throat....while they wallow in their perverse behaviors."

      I can't decided if you are talking of the dems or pubs?  This all sounds much like the dems (multi-married, cheating, etc.) with their steel claws around the throat of the country as they destroy it with impossible fiscal policies, but that doesn't sound like you! 

      Of course, it could also refer to the pubs almost as well, with just a little difference in thrust.  This is how I personally see the two sides:

      Liberal - "I will tell you how to spend your money, what to put in your mouth (or lungs), what you can own.  I will decide when you have enough money and take the rest to give to my friends and to those that I deem needy for my morals are superior to yours and you are incapable of making right decisions."

      Conservative - "I will tell you what or who to worship, for my God has given me directions which only I can interpret.  I will tell you what you can do with your body, I will spend your earnings to spread my religion and teach it to your children.  I will tell you what you can or can't do in your bedroom.  Your morals are inferior to mine and you are incapable of making the right decisions so I must do it for you.

      Reducing either one to the basics:

      I WILL CONTROL YOU (in a very loud voice) because you are too stupid to live your own life (quietly, but the message is clear).

      Do I have a twisted, perverted view of our masters in Washington?  Does it really matter which side is controlling us?  On the one side are the morality judges demanding that we run the entire country into the ground  until everyone is equally broke and poor - on the other side are the religious judges demanding that we all worship as they do as that's all that really matters.

  4. feenix profile image61
    feenixposted 4 years ago

    All I know is every thing that is formed by human beings -- including both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party -- has a vast number of flaws, defects, imperfections, or whatever you want to call it.

  5. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago

    Except atheism, which has nothing but the abyss to offer, and delivers on it too smile

  6. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Here's all I have to say:

    Democrats --pro-choice.
    Republicans-- anti-abortion.

    and this just came on my twitter and suits me too:

    "When NO child is starving, sexually enslaved or physically abused, then I'll concern myself with the unborn."

    all these so-called pro-life don't give a darn once they get here: "Not My Problem."

    Meanwhile, programs that help the already born are slashed to provide tax cuts to the Uber so very Rich.

    How anyone can say both parties are the same is beyond me. It's another distortion to prevent change from happening IMO.

    1. feenix profile image61
      feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All I know is, since 1973 when abortion was legalized in the U.S., nearly 10-million black people have been killed before they were even born. And I also know that the rate of abortion among black females is seven times higher than it is among white females.

      Furthermore, I am well aware that the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in, or in close proximity to, predominantly-black communities.

      And in the addition to that, one of the leading founders of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a self-avowed white supremacist who often said that black people are an "inferior strain" and that "they are like weeds."

      And intestingly, Sanger made the decision to open the first Planned Parenthood clinic in 1929, in the predominantly-black section of New York City called Harlem. And in that clinic, she personally oversaw the the sterilization of hundreds of black women who were unaware they were being sterilized.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hmmm, I read it was the lower east side and european immigranst, the women who were having baby after baby after baby and dying by age 30.

        And, in my view...you are not automatically a person just by being fertilized! It takes a while of development.

        Ridding a fertilized egg is like ridding sperm, or menstruating.
        It's a collction of zygotes swimming in amniotic fluid...not a person.

        And I don't know about sanger in PP, but I only know if you needed birth control, or a free pap smear and mammogram--that was where you could go.

        Black white red and yellow all welcome.

        1. feenix profile image61
          feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are correct. Margaret Sanger's way of thinking was inspired by what she witnessed on on the Lower East Side with the huge influx of Italian and eastern European (mostly Jews) immigrants. However, she moved on to focus the bulk of her attention on blacks.

          And today, abortion is being used as a means to commit black genocide, in the U.S., the Caribbean, South America (primarily Brazil), and sub-Saharan black Africa.

          The U.N.'s World Health Organization, along with Planned Parenthood, are going full throttle to talk impoverished black women with little or no education into undergoing abortions and sterilization.

          Then there is the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and blacks account for the largest number of people who have died from, and who are infected with, that disease, by far.

          And that is very interesting when it is taken into account that AIDS is what could be described as a "brand-new incurable-and-terminal disease."

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, hey--I agree that aids is man-made, in a gvt military lab.

            And deliberately spread to people....blacks and gays.

            But I don't know about the genocide...are they forced to abort, like in China?

            1. feenix profile image61
              feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, AIDS was developed to slow the growth of the black population. The first homosexuals to get infected with the disease were collateral damage.

              What happened was, during the late 1970s, homosexual men vacationing in the Caribbean (mostly Haiti) contracted the disease from young black men who were infected with it. And when those homosexual men returned to their homes in such places as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City, they brought the infection with them and touched off an epidemic in the "gay communities."

              So far as black women and abortion -- no, they are not being forced to undergo the procedure. A great many of them are being conned into having abortions, and that is easy to do. Those women tend to be quite gullible and impressionable because of such factors as abject poverty, limited educations and ignorance of all the information about reproduction that is available today.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ...Guys... AIDS came from sub Saharan primates... the disease can easily be tracked back. It was not made to kill anyone, it is however far more dangerous to gay men, followed by straight people and then lesbians.

                1. feenix profile image61
                  feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak, I am not going to get into a big debate with you, but you are dead wrong. All of the accurate data concerning AIDS is available on the internet, and is provided by very reliable sources.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image84
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If that is true, cite some specific links that can be verified...

                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article … =pmcentrez
                  http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp

                  The first is a true scientific article the second a layman article.

  7. Mitch Alan profile image84
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    Both parties are taking us down the wrong path, one faster than the other. Both have become Progressive movement oriented. The Democrats fastest, but the Republicans too fast as well.  We need leader who will FOLLOW the CONSTITUTION...It's that simple.  Federal government overreach has become the norm...No federal Dept of (fill in the blank) is needed...Protect LIFE and LIBERTY...individuals, communities and States will, and should, determine the rest.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree.
      Republicans progressive? Only to get votes!

      Constitution is out-dated.

      Universal Bill of Rights is what's needed. Not states deciding who is equal or not. old boy club run rampant? No tanks.

      1. Mitch Alan profile image84
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Progressive movement is a pegorative...it's not a good thing...What part of the Constitution is outdated...BE SPECIFIC...and we have a Bill of Rights as part of our Constitution...which of those freedoms do you wish to abolish?

        1. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't wish to abolish freedoms..I wish to expand them.
          Take a look around.
          Rights are being taken away left and right since 2010.
          You may think it's a god-given right to do so....I do not.

          The Constitution may be a wonderful thing....But we need to adhere to it. And I'm no expert...not by far, but I do know Congress is supposed to print money. Green-backs were they called? Lincoln killed, Kennedy killed, Reagan shot, Obama threatened.

          I do know that the top 1% of America is ripping the rest of us off...BIG time. And they are doing so by laws that gv put in. Or they're just working around them.
          Any attempt to change that is met with cries of Socialism.

          And I also know that Capitalism is not mentioned ONCE as the way we must govern!

  8. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
    crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago

    Great reply. Both parties have sold out America and the tea party is not a third party. It's just more of the same.

  9. Bob Zermop profile image92
    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago

    Agreed with what several have said so far; both parties are corrupt and useless. The ideology behind both parties has denigrated to name-calling and sound-bites. I'm no Democrat and I'm no Republican. Decided to avoid all labels and just present my views after the past couple rounds of election mania.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's just not true. There are real ideas and ways to see life behind the party's.

      I'm a dem because I'm pro-choice, pro-union, and pro equal rights for all.

      You insult me by saying I stand for nothing...and you do-- because you denounce both parties.

      Where is your stand?

      1. Mitch Alan profile image84
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are not pro choice, you are pro abortion...right?
        Are you pro choice for school choice, right to bear arms, chose who you hire, choice what foods you can and can't eat, smoke etc...or do you prefer to let a bloated federal bureaucracy decide?

        1. Mitch Alan profile image84
          Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Protect life...and liberty...

        2. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No--I am pro-choice. Did I not speak clearly?

          I hate guns, and wish they were never invented...but I have to live with your right to kill if you so choose.

          Nobody is telling me what to eat....where the heck do you live?

          1. Mitch Alan profile image84
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There are, if you are speaking about abortion, two choices...allow a child to be born or to kill him/her...so you can either be pro-life or pro-abortion...those ARE the choices.

            Guns when used properly are a good thing, whether for hunting or for protection against those that would do you and your family harm.

            Do you believe that parents should be able to decide where to send their children to school and have real competition for the best education OR do you believe the no-choice government schools are doing a good job?

            New York has already instituted bans on certain foods under the liberal guise of "you best interests"...other liberals are looking to do the same on a larger scale.

            1. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              OK--I'll play your game:

              Guns are made to kill people. You can choose to use it to kill or not. But owning a gun makes you pro-murder, right?

              Because what you do with it is given for you to decide.

              I guess a gun now has more rights than a woman too.

              I believe every citizen in this country has the right to food, housing, heat, schools,safety and healthcare.

              I'm DONE with this ideology that companies are entitled to make a profit on these basic human needs.

  10. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Oooops! What do you know???

    KISMET!

    http://www.rense.com/general81/sdf.htm

  11. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
    crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago

    One of my big problems with both parties are that they supported NAFTA and several other programs that have sold out America. I would have liked to have seen someone from either party stand up for America.

    Until we stand up as an American people and demand real change then America is going to slowly circle the drain.

    The only way to save America is to really piss off a few countries like China and Mexico. The really big one we should do right away is demand that with things like textiles, automobiles, and steel that 80 percent of those products would have to be made here in the USA. That would improve the American job situation over night.

    We should legalize marijuana and tax it. It's one of the stupidest things we've ever done is to continue to criminalize marijuana. We could use the taxes to repair our roads and bridges.

    We should take a real serious look at how many people we have locked up and on many of them we should open the doors and let non violent people go. Or make them serve a portion of their sentence repairing bridges and roads and then let them go.

    It is going to take radical change to save America and restore the American dream. And the American Dream must be restored.

    The Democrats and Republicans along with the tea party darlings can continue to get you to play political games or you can stand up as an American people and tell them your through playing political games and you want radical revolutionary change that is going to restore the American Dream.

    How the average American can not see through the spin game is beyond me. You better wake up America before it really is too late.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Kucinich yelled against NAFTA, the Iraq "war", and the Patriot Act...(because I actually read it)

      Kaptur was telling people to stay in their homes, that the banks had no legal right to throw them out.

      Barney Frank has been fighting bank powers, and when he was Chairman, the Fed was investigated.

      You can't throw all out with the bathwater, IMO.

      1. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
        crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe the average person would not want to but I think we've reached the point in time where maybe we need revolution. Just throw it all out and start over.

        Maybe this time have enough sense to outlaw lobbyists and make it so we don't have career politicians. A one term six year president and a six year limit on the congress or senate would change America forever. Especially if we had enough sense to out law lobbyists of any type.

        We would then go back to citizen politicians and the career politicians would be gone forever.

        Just like I said above and no one may not want to agree but it is going to take radical earth shattering change to truly change America.

        Those I suggested above and term limits with no lobbyists would change America forever.

        Or we can keep playing the political spin games and let the country keep going to hell in a hat basket because that is where it is surely headed.

        If every American would refuse to play spin games and ask the politicians real serious questions it would change America forever for the better.

        If we have to tear down the system to build a better America then that is what we need to do.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Term limits are fine, as is the reduction in the amount of lobbying that can/should be done.  However, that limits someone's liberty, as would limiting the amount of campaign donations one can give.

          I'm in favor of those policies, but it must be admitted that it is reducing the amount of direct influence people have over their elected representatives.

  12. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    I'm going to point out in a general way that talking about both parties is, again, irrelevant to the point I am making.  The Republican party calls itself the party of liberty, and completely abdicates it.

    A true defender of liberty does not defend corporate capitalism.  A great article on the actual ideologies behind conservatism, socialism, communism, and liberalism sheds light on the mistaken views people hold about who fits where on the ideological spectrum.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html

    The article is a little dense, but it's well worth the read, and it will help elucidate why members of the left are more in line with liberty than modern-day conservatives.

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp  Another libertarian source.

  13. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    By Ali Gharib on May 22, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    "Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Cuban president Raúl Casto
    When the State Department granted the head of Cuba’s National Center for Sex Education, Mariela Castro Espín, a visa to chair a panel on LGBT issues at the Latin American Studies Association in San Francisco later this week, the Republican response was as obvious as the Cuban LGBT activist’s relations to the Caribbean island’s Communist dictators. Her father is Cuban President Raúl Castro, her uncle is revolutionary leader and longtime dictator Fidel Castro, and the Republicans were “appalled.”

    “The State Department needs to wake up from its delusional love fest with the dictators in Havana,” said right-wing House Foreign Affairs chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Republican Members of Congress released web videos and organized conference calls denouncing the visa as “outrageous.”

    Even presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney got in on the action, releasing a statement accusing the Obama administration of “a slap in the face to all those brave individuals in Cuba who are enduring relentless persecution.”

    Ros-Lehtinen and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), David Rivera (R-FL) and Albio Sires (R-NJ) wrote a strongly-worded letter to the State Department saying:

    The administration’s appalling decision to allow regime agents into the U.S. directly contradicts Congressional intent and longstanding U.S. foreign policy.

    If it’s “longstanding U.S. foreign policy” to deny Mariela Castro a visa to enter the U.S., someone forgot to tell President George W. Bush. The Bush administration granted Castro not one but three visas to enter the U.S. in 2001 and 2002. State Department spokesman william Ostick told the Miami Herald:

    Mariela Castro visited once in 2001 and twice in 2002. I can’t discuss her visas specifically, but you can assume she needed one to travel.

    An Obama surrogate, Freddy Balsera, told the Herald:

    In fact, the top State Department Official in charge of Latin America at the time was a Cuban American. Where was their criticism then? Nowhere, because ultimately this is all about politics for them."

    50 Cent needs to make a song:  Hip-Hopcricy.--tell the young people about the R's.

 
working