Is the Democrat Party dead?
- Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
0Where is it?
and What is it?
Is it now the Activist Party?
The Homosexual Party?
The Vengeance Party?
The Obama Worshippers Party?
There seems to be little semblance left of what it used to be. Before 2008, it still held to at least SOME core moral values and SOME sense of manners. Now all it does is accuse and blame and mock and twist everything around for its own agenda.
Anybody seen it?
I've been looking for it.
Nope. Nowhere to be found......Brenda, The Dems are due for demise? That is not what I am hearing among those who are in a position to know from either side of the political divide.The GOP folks had better address the serious demographic deficits in their approach to the electorate or that elephant mascot of theirs will revert to a wooly mammoth sooner rather than later....
I didn't say they were due for demise. I said where is the Party; is it already gone? Because the Party whose icon was just Inaugurated bears almost no resemblance to the Democrat Party at all, or any legitimate American political Party.
I hardly find that true, Brenda. And that 'icon' is also your President. He speaks for a culturally diverse country.
I have yet to hear him speak for unborn children, or for the fathers of unborn children, or for Christians, and I'll tell you this--------those are three very valid and very important segments of our society. And those are just three segments. There are more that he dismisses, replacing them with his own agenda.
If the majority of people wanted to stop abortion it would be stopped. If the majority of people wanted to give a man control over a woman's body he would have it. If a majority of people wanted... well whatever it is you say that Christians (read you) want then it would happen.
And if the majority of the people wanted a different president we would have one.
Time marches on Brenda... and it sucks to be in the minority. Sorry about that.If someone has to ask if the DMC is alive isn't very observent or has taken denial to a whole new level.
too bad so many have have been into the koolaide.
the country has been under seige through the democrats for 7 years.
the immoral politicians ply their corruptive pundits during each election and the irrational buy the koolaide once again.
no one has ever received 100% of the vote. Not even the first president.
but the irrational sense today seems to have been able to pull it off with multiple voters, corrupted software, and the lame-stream media.
hopefully, the koolaide drinking crowd will wake up soon - or it will be another Jamestown.Boy... you really like the koolaide reference.
Good question indeed.
I haven't heard him defend the rights of
Christians (of any denomination),
fetuses,
caucasians,
MEN (in the case of fathers of the unborn),
conservatives (no matter what gender/denomination/lack of denomination/age/culture),
parents specifically, who don't want him telling their kids not to listen to them,
grandmothers,
gun owners,
people who're harrassed because they disagree with him,
anti-Islam and/or pro-Christ filmmakers,
pro-Life people, (he has said they have rights, but has ignored all their petitioning),
Southerners,
citizens who want to propose laws instead of having him to make laws,
straight people who don't want to be forced to legally sanction immoral sexual practices,
a probably large-but-understandably-silent portion of gays who do NOT want gay marriage forced upon the Nation,
companies who do not want illegals to apply for jobs so that they might have to hire them even if they're not skilled or language-skilled for those jobs,
people who would rather have the National debt paid off before worrying about the unproven "global warming",
people who want transparency in Office,
soldiers who don't want to have to burn Bibles while he defends Muhammad,
soldiers who don't want to listen to another guy in a bunk beside them tell them they're gay,
soldiers who want to know they're fighting for the American people's safety instead of Obama's personal glory,
people who know it's better for men, overall, than women to be soldiers,
people who aren't prejudiced,
people who know that capitalism makes for a free market,
rich people who've earned their way to the top and deserve not to have their income messed with by him,
people who think he should remember he's part white when he lords his skin color over America,
people who point out that he's racist himself,
people who want to buy a cheap car instead of going into debt for one,
parents of school children who don't want a gay advocate (Arnie Duncan) in charge of our schools,
schoolchildren who are bullied and mocked (usually by teachers) because they're fat or not-so-pretty or because they're conservative,
Americans who don't want the Constitution changed,
Americans who know how to properly interpret that Constitution,
people who don't want an Islam-defending activist taking the President's seat,
people who are ashamed when well-known magazine covers refer to him as some sort of Messiah,
true Republicans (not the Colin Powell type)
.........and I can probably name a lot more.......that's quite a lot of Americans there that haven't heard one word about him protecting their rights. I'd say it's actually a majority of Americans.Way to go Brenda!
I think you covered it. The most important thing to remind people of, is that freedom is not free, and our founders new that. They gave us the tools to stay free. Our constitution is not a living document that should be changed to the needs of our times. It is a road map to freedom and prosperity. The Founders were wise and had already suffered under the ownership of Kings, they had been subjects instead of equal owners of their government. The Founders knew what didn't work when they wrote the founding documents. And while it was still fresh in their experience they authored the documents that have guided this country to success and prosperity for all.That's true!
Thanks Chuck.
The Constitution is solid. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it, that's how I see it. And it ain't broke.The constitution is fine, the conservative fictional interpretation of it is not, the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court (as the constitution itself says it should be) is doing just fine what Republicans think the constitution is... different story.
Not so.
Lately, it is the Supreme Court which has lent itself to wrong interpretations of the Constitution.
It's pretty sad when an average citizen like myself can interpret the Law better than supposedly-learned-and-wise Judges..........Perfect example of my point
The constitution says that the supreme court is the ultimate legislate power in the United States, so either the Constitution is flawed and needs fixing (you just said it didn't) or the constitution is right as it is and all is as should be...
Can't have it both ways.
Of course you are better able to interpret the law than actual expertsOf course I can have it both ways.
The problem is not with the Supreme Court itself. It is with the Judges who sit on it. Just like the problem is not with the role of the President of the United States. The problem is that people have been allowed to be in positions they are not fit for.
Yeah, we all know ANYTHING that disagrees with Josak's point of view he blanket labels as fiction. He loves to paint with that broad brush - it saves the time wasted searching the facts. Oh how blessed we are that Josak takes the time and effort to enlighten the masses.
You are most welcome for the enlightening.
Obviously not everything I disagree with is a fiction, the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court is the real functioning constitution, the constitution as imagined by conservatives is a complete fiction, this is definitionaly the case once we establish the obvious fact that there is a difference between the two. Really not debatable.To what do you refer, conservative interpretation?
Well there are too many issues to possibly cover but everything from the separation of church and state to what the rights of states are, as seen by recent attempts by states to pass laws that would make enforcement of federal laws (gun laws) in those states illegal on the basis that those laws are unconstitutional, hilariously passing/enforcing such a law is itself unconstitutional.
To be fair I suspect liberals have their own fictions on the constitution but they are somewhat less vocal about it.A state passing and enforcing a law that directly contravenes or cancels a federal law is unconstitutional as per the supremacy powers which are given to the federal government in the constitution. Article 6 Clause 2.
As long as congress is acting within its constitutional limits. If they try to ban firearms they are not in accordance with the constitution and may be disregarded.
Perhaps, that would be subject to a constitutional challenge, but the law does not ban guns, it limits certain weapons and ammo clips and this has already been done before and has been ruled constitutional, the states are free to start another pointless constitutional challenge but otherwise they cannot constitutionally make and enforce laws that contradict federal laws as federal laws have supremacy.
I didn't say anything about banning certain weapons. I said ban firearms, and as much as you think you know I assure you you do not. Hide and watch.
The laws I am specifically talking about are the recent executive orders, certain states attempting to pass laws to ban something they believe unconstitutional (which has been ruled constitutional in the past by the supreme court) and in doing so violating the constitution is a perfect example of the fictional interpretation conservatives have of the constitution, is that putting it simply enough to avoid confusion?
Executive Orders are not laws.
Not no where not no how.*sigh* See? The supreme court has upheld executive orders as binding laws or more correctly alteration to existing laws, and therefore yes they are laws and yes they are constitutional, that is just another difference between reality and the conservative fiction I mentioned.
The act of giving an executive order is constitutional, the order itself may not be.
But as I have already stated the order does the same thing as has already been ruled constitutional repeatedly and thus is constitutional in it's content.
No, That's ridiculous, if that were true then how do you explain the court overruling two executive orders one by FDR and one by Clinton? It does not surprise me that both were democrats.
The supreme court has over ruled several orders because they do something orders are not allowed to do i.e. create a whole new law, they must modify an existing law instead, this order modifies an existing law and is as such constitutional in form and does something that has been ruled constitutional repeatedly and as such is constitutional in content...
Thus the law is constitutional and the state actions unconstitutional. It's very simple really.I'm not talking about a specific executive order, you seem to be claiming that any order is constitutional.
Sorry if that was the impression given, certainly not what I meant, all I meant to convey was #1 executive orders are valid laws or changes thereof and #2 This executive order is perfectly legal and constitutional.
Executive orders are not valid laws.
They are directives to the Executive branch, more akin to administrative memos.
Any executive order that attempts to circumvent Congress to change law, or to circumvent the natural judiciary process, is unconstitutional. The President's Constitutional responsibility is to see that the laws of the nation are faithfully observed, not to try to bypass Congress to change them.Wrong.
Executive orders are laws “of general applicability and legal effect.”
Their constitutional basis is in my view flimsy but is upheld by the supreme court as constitutional and as such executive orders can amend laws with absolute constitutionality without congressional approval (they cannot create new laws as established in 1952 with the steel mills seizure order).No, they are not laws. Period. Nor can they amend laws. They are administrative directives, with the force of law.
Laws are left up to the legislative branch. The Constitutionality is pretty clear, the President's Constitutional responsibility is to see that the existing laws are upheld.
So if i am President I don't really need Congress?
I can just dream it up and write it up and hey presto!
Differentiate that from monarchy please.
Of corse not debatable - who dare disagree with highness Josak. Never mind the court is about evenly split between liberal and conservative and if the balance was to the conservatives you certainly would not be OK with saying " the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court (as the constitution itself says it should be)" now would you, since you already said the conservative view is fiction - you are so disingenuous. It is never worth the waste of time debating with you so we'll justwordhip hishighness - I'm sure you are OK with that..
Obviously absolutely ok with that.
Well firstly no because even the most conservative supreme court judges in the modern era have the knowledge to understand that the conservative understanding of the constitution is just wrong, they understand for example that interpreting the constitution is about interpreting the likely meaning of the author, this is for example commonly seen with the "wall of separation" issue drawn from other writings rather than the constitution itself.Absolutely - absolutely duplicitous! Whenever your own statements are thrown back at you, you attempt to weasel out with some rationalization that totally contradicts what you first said. So now conservatives all have a fictional interpretation of the constitution UNLESS they are on the court and then somehow they magically agree with your non fictional interpretation which is in the end simply a radical liberal interpretation that says the constitution is a "living" document so they can is insert their own personal views into it. So you now want us to believe if the majority of the court agreed with Antonin Scalia who recently said that the constituion is NOT a living document you'd be OK with that?
Thanks Josak for demonstrating everything I said about you is accurate - this forum is your shovel, keep digging the hole you are in.First off weren't you going to give up talking to that meanie Josak?
I thought it was obvious that when I spoke of a fictional conservative belief of the contents of the constitution (as indeed I mentions a liberal one) it was in general terms, obviously not every conservative will hold a fiction to be true and not every conservative will hold the same fiction to be true either, experts in their fields as supreme court judges are they are less liable to hold fictions as truth in their own area of specialty (I did not think this required explaining) given that the explanation I gave is just fine.
That was tedious
As for the living document fluff I never said any such thing but you of course flew off the handle about it... you love those fictions so I am not surprised, let me know when you return to reality and what I have actually said rather than what you imagined I did.
I can't tell what's worse...
The fact that you actually believe this..
Or that others actually think you are on to something.
How is Colin Powell not a Republican? Is it because he's black? Or is it because he is a moderate (which might actually be scarier to the average conservative these days)
Women don't make good soldiers?
And Obama did recently say that a viable GOP was important to democracy.He's not a republican because he votes for democrats. He is a democrat or an independent.
And independents can't lean to the right?
So, I can't be white because I eat Mexican food?
Is that supposed to negate what I said? Doesn't work.
Well, you ARE supporting the obvious notion that Conservatives don't believe in choice or free will.
No I'm not I'm stating Colin Powell is not a republican. Nothing more.
He's not a Republican because he occasionally makes a choice of political candidate who isn't also a Republican? Sounds like you think people should be boxed into having only one choice depending on their status!
Surely, Ms. Durham, you are aware that the governance of the USA is not decided by Democratic or Republican party members but according to the preferences of unaligned independent voters. There are only 73 million registered members in both major parties and 24 million unaligned registered independent voters who are mostly moderates. {1}{2} Clearly neither major party determined the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.
I am sympathetic to your disappointment. I remember how I felt in 2004. I am truly sorry that you get so overly emotional over a simple election. There have been 57 post-Constitution presidential elections in this country. After every one of them, there were some Americans feeling as you do today. It is not likely to be a terminal illness for you or for the country unless you make it into one.
Among the 126 million voters on Election Day there were over 126 million visions of America’s future and citizens had to choose between just seven. You should not feel badly that your vision was not the one selected. America is not doomed because all of us did not agree on who would set the course for the country during the next four years. It is the reason we select a President and not a king. Governance is meant to change, meant to include new visions, meant to allow changes in course.
Ours is a unique system and it has functioned fairly well for a long time. You will surely have another chance to celebrate. Until then, Ms. Durham, be patient.
{1} http://2012election.procon.org/view.res … eID=004483
{2} http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/pol … 52171688/1Yes surely Ms Durham you must be aware of what Quilligrapher condescendingly asserts to you (with the implication - you must be aware or you must be stupid) .
How does the governance of the USA not be decided by Democratic or Republican party members when that is who the independents vote for? Once in office it is the parties, one or the other or a compromise of the two that actually govern the country and it matters not where their votes came from, they determine the governance in a dynamic way and not always in line with why the voters elected them. The voters don't govern, that is the whole point of a representative republic.
'Ah yes the independent voters. Do you include in that the 90,000,000 eligible voters who don't vote? - nearly 40% of the electorate doesn't vote. According to your description of independents as "unaligned independent voters", you must then include a majority of the 40% of non-voting electorate. So by your "logic", the non-voting electorate actually determines the governence of the country, by not voting.
Well, is the democrat party really dead? (Or just confused)
I can understand why you ask that question after reading this: http://conservativenewmedia.com/2011/06 … democrat/.
In 2011 a video surfaced on YouTube from the College Democrats of America (CDA) explaining why they are Democrats. This video, titled “The Obama Generation” shows support for the Democratic Party for a wide range of reasons, from believing in hope to opposing free trade. The video was made private after dissenting comments began appearing, but a public version appears here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RiY3q26yJE.
It seems these democrats don't know what their party believes in, or their party doesn't know what it believes in, or both (or is it just that they worship Obama, votes and policies are irrelevant because they have a Messiah which is what the party has become, a cult - if so it IS dead)
In order to illustrate the pure delusion among young Democrats, here is a recap leaving out those students who made purely emotional points that need no rebuttal. http://conservativenewmedia.com/2011/06 … -democrat/What does that even mean? Is that what Rush said today?
First of all I didn't even know there was a "Democrat Party." What I do know is the "Democratic Party" is alive and thriving. The "Democrats" have an agenda that appeals to the majority of citizens, versus the Republican Party that has allowed the fringe Tea Party to overtake them, thereby failing miserably with the general public.
And every republican state is a thriving one compared to the dismal showing of democrat states.
Congratulations.OMG...I'm laughing so hard I almost fell out of my chair. Yup, the GOP is thriving. I guess that's why they are gerrymandering in an effort to cheat their way into office during the next presidential election. After all, if the masses were behind them then there would be no need to cheat...would there? Thank you for the laugh though.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Do we really want to compare poverty, crime or taxpayer cost state by state?
Red states are the poorest, most obese, have the highest crime rates and cost the taxpayer more, Texas is the only red state in the nation that costs less than it gives back, all the other red states are being supported by federal money and receive more than they give back in it.
Ah yes...the talking points!
I am not really a big fan of the GOP but that set of talking points is getting really old and tired.
I am happy with "the homosexual party."
It's a decent example, the Democrat party is the party aiming to give freedom, liberty and equal rights under the law to everyone, in defiance of the ignorant and tyrannical that prefer to impose their religion and world view on the lives of others without care for liberty or freedom while liberally sprinkling those words without apparent irony.You must mean an indecent example. How ironic. Apparently. lol
Yup also the party that stands for it being pretty darned wrong to label %5 of the population "indecent" because they like to do something else in bed (but will still defend your right to do so rather than making it illegal ). The party that gives and believes in the FREEDOM and LIBERTY to choose who you love and who you marry in opposition to the tyranny of those who wish to deny people those freedoms.
Nope. I can't help what anyone wants to do in their own bed. They need to keep it in their bed, though, instead of forcing other people to make a law saying it's okay. If they wouldn't make an issue of it, it wouldn't be an issue. But the ball has already rolled several thousand times over, what with all the riots in the streets and the hoopla and the accusations and the harrassment of conservatives and the gay parades and all that carp. So now conservatives have risen to the occasion and had to fight against it.
What people want to do in their own bed AND who they want to marry, they are often integrally tied, and no one has any right to legislate either without being utterly tyrannical... hence the conservative movement.
I earnestly hope that there is never a day that people make laws to stop you from marrying who you wish... no one deserves that.No, no one deserves that in my case. lol. Because I wouldn't want to marry someone of the same gender as me, nor a child, nor an animal, etc. Nor would most people.
But the fact that other people do, or might decide they want to, that's why there are (or were) laws against all those things. If there were no laws against things, chaos would reign. It's getting there these days.And there we go... being gay is in the same category as being a pederast... charming. Thank god yours is a dying creed.
"For their own good and the common good we must make others submit to our rules"
Guess who said it?
Stalin.
It's the common ideal of all tyrants."...thank god..." you said.....
God has nothing to do with that. That would be the other guy who's trying to make conservatism a
dying creed"...........
And I will tell you this-----there are "gays" who do not want the freedom to get married to a same-gender person. They actually want privacy and strength to deal with their issues in the way they can deal with them. Not have their temptations splayed all over society for the agenda of liberal activists. Some of them still believe in the possibility of repentance and forgiveness. If laws are made that condone their issues, then they have no recourse for dealing with their problems, no hope of redemption. It is actually human nature to want guidance and help instead of just being ignored and/or used for a political agenda that some ambitious thoughtless people put in place.I have never met any gay person who holds that belief I doubt there are more than a handful, no one is forcing them to come out or to be sexually involved anyhow but to force others to remain unmarried so that this handful don't have the temptation to that perfectly harmless (indeed scientifically healthy) thing is the most perverse and irrational thinking I have heard in a long time.
Just tyranny wrapped in protectionism, I think you and Stalin might get along famously, he made homosexuality illegal too.So you willingly choose to ignore the minority (if indeed they're in the minority).
hmm.
And "scientifically healthy"?! LOL.
That's funny. Almost.
And I'm not interested in conversing with you anymore, since you want to compare me to Stalin. I haven't compared you to anybody. So whatever, Josak.
I'll leave you to your confusion and bias.
But you really might want to widen your intellectual and societal horizons by actually researching the fact that not all "gays" think like you do. Plus the fact that most of the current line of thinking has been instigated by a handful of radical minds who only want your vote. It's really bad when liberal activists (people who claim to be so free and knowledgeable and civil-rights-oriented) stay stuck in a box instead of thinking outside it.Nope not ignoring them, not harming them in any way except giving them more options.
Statistically and scientifically speaking a gay person who is married has better health and better mental health than unmarried gay people and abstinent gay people. So yes scientifically, factually and irrefutably healthy.
You compare gay people to pederasts I compare you to Stalin, you have ideological similarities to Stalin, gay people have no more similarity to pederasts than the average straight couple, thus it's a fair comparison.
So then those who are against gay marriage need to keep it in their church and stop making laws saying that its not OK.
Well, we are alive enough to keep the party of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Satan out of the White House and out of control of the Senate. Soon, it will be out of control of the Supreme Court, too.
Really?
What Party would that "Party of Satan" be?
Did I leave out the Accuser Party?Yeah, Brenda, you didn't know Abraham Lincoln was a Satanist and is known as the father of Stalinism? Probably taught Hitler everything he knew. Brenda, it's hard to have discussons when the forum is open to people like Xenonlit. You just have to grin and bear it. I laugh everytime one of its ilk shows up. Good entertainment.
Hi Bro!
I've just been looking for the Democrat Party. I think maybe I could point Colin Powell toward it if I could just find it!
He certainly has no business staying in the Republican Party!Well it's been said today's Democrat Party is not the Democrat Party of our Grandfathers, even your father's Democrat Party if you're my age.This says it best from http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseact … e=HI_opeds
"No longer able to govern for the vast majority of the country, the Democratic party simply taxes Middle America to pay off its clients while hiding its true nature behind a smoke screen of idealistic rhetoric. Thus, the Obama health care, stimulus, and auto bailout health care bill were created not to help all Americans but to secure contributions and votes. Average Americans need to see that whatever the Democratic party claims it is doing for the country, it is in fact governing simply for its base."Very interesting article!
I didn't know about Arthur Davis, for instance, or the New Democrats, etc....
The Democrats are in sinc with the Average American. The real question here is what has happened to the Republican Party? They are so right and of teaparty mentality, they are completely out of touch with the Average American. If they keep on this track, the Republican Party will become the extinct party.
"completely out of touch with the Average American" really? - how about some facts supportng that - you think that because Obama won that is enough? Lets look at the facts.
Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured only 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.
The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.
Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s 327,870.
Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney's 4,162,174.
Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779
Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s 1,789,618.
Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.
SO this election was actually closer than anyone on the left wants to let on.
What about the other ~93,000,000 voters who chose not to vote? Could they be a silent majority that has chosen to abandon the system or are they just people who don't matter, because the media certainly doesn't talk about them at all? How can this"democracy" be sustained when ~40% of it's eligible electorate don't care enough to be involved in the proocess? Although Barack Obama won re-election handily over Mitt Romney with 332 electoral votes (well more than the 270 electoral votes needed of the nine battleground states that were up for grabs, Obama won eight of them) he didn't crush it; instead he won a string of precise narrow victories. The president won because he ran a permanent campaign, keeping his offices open in the battleground states from his 2008 campaign and because he relentlessly defined his opponent.
His was the better campaign and thus scored a tactical victory as election returns show but he has no grand mandate out of the numbers.
He has been re-elected, but his policies did not win the day. Voters didn't turn their faces up to the vision he painted the way they did in 2008. When voters were asked which candidate had a vision for the future, Romney won that question in exit polls, 55 percent to 43 percent. Asked about Obama's signature achievement, health care, voters did not approve. Forty-nine percent said they wanted it repealed in part or whole. Voters also said the federal government was too large.
So where are your facts to support your less than sober statement?
"Democrats are gay!"
"No, Republicans are mouth-breathers!"
Seriously, this forum is like watching gorillas play tic-tac-toe.Isn't it, though?!
Personally, I got tired of all the threads bashing the Republican Party or Tea Party or conservatives in general, and decided to ask the most pressing question about the Democrat Party (which, few people want to answer; guess they're too happy accusing the most conservative Party in town, or else they really can't see that the Democrat Party is disappearing under the sway of whatever Party that Obama has set in place.)Building one's entire debate on the actions/views of your opponent obfuscates where you're coming from, which is why both the left and right fail to see the failures of their own side/party, and will continue with their circular debates.
Most leftist/democrat arguments on this forum consist of the notion that the right, those crazy, religious, mouth-breathing, Rush Limbaugh-listening, tea party, homophobic gun-nuts are preventing progress. It's a generalisation, sure, but perhaps true in some cases. I'm frustrated at these kinds of conservatives too, the difference is that the left will not exclude any solution if it disadvantages this particular demographic. They appear to be willing to abandon freedom of speech in their calls to regulate/prohibit talk-radio because they think Rush is an idiot and take away the right of people to defend themselves because they have an image in their mind of crazy red-necks with 50 rifles coming to kill their children. There are numerous other examples, and I could say the same about mainstream conservatives too.
And when Democrats and Republicans DO come together and agree, it's usually for the worst. This seems to happen most with the economy. Both parties are massive, irresponsible spenders and money-printers.
@Brenda Durham, sorry, but it's the GOP in trouble here. People are fed up with their extreme right religeous views and teaparty ideas! Those folks are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. There was a time, the GOP was conservative and represents and earned the respect of the American public. If they don't change, the GOP, in my opinion will just disappear!
Umm, I don't think so.
And surely those views can take up space in the other threads criticizing the Republican Party. There are at least two such threads that have been goin' and goin' like the energizer bunny for weeks now....
Not to say you don't have the right to post those views here, 'cause you do, but I really really do want to see if any Democrats will actually take a good hard look under the rug and tell me where the Democrat Party went.You're critizing a President elected not once, but twice, overwhelmingly by the American People. They could have chosen a Republican for President this time, but the message the GOP was sending, wasn't received at all! The Democrat Party has changed with the times. They are a party of "all walks of life", not just a priviledged few. And until the GOP realizes, times have changed, and win back the confidence of All Americans, their party will slowly fall to the way side. I keep hearing about big government.How about the far right religeous extremists? I didn't realize God appointed a few people to dictate the values of all Americans. I'm tired of all the "religeon" put into the GOP's platforms. I hate to inform you, but this country is a melting pot of all races and religions. That's part of what makes this country Great!
Overwhelmingly? Less than 3% popular vote is overwelmingly? That is the margin of error in most polls. And only 333,908 more votes in four key swing states would have won Romney the election. You clearly exaggerate everything you say and base nothing in fact...doesn't do much for your credbility to anyone who is informed.
Just read about Horace Greeley, he supported the Whig Party.
which was for a strong government. The Democrat Party was against a big government.
Something has certainly changed.Brenda,
You asked where the democrat party is? It's veiled in progressive socialism, spending its way to greater government dependency. Does anybody find it a bit ironic that liberals are touting how great President Obama is while saying that the republican party is too conservative, specifically the tea party? President Obama is their equivalent. If the tea party is highly conservative, then President Obama certainly measures up to being highly liberal. Don't think so? Name one moderate or conservative viewpoint he holds, just one. He's certainly not moderate, even by liberal standards. Why is it so bad that republicans have a conservative segment? The democrats have a socialist segment, and it even has a leader. Some liberal will respond that it's great that we have the tea party, because they cost us the election. That's always the response. The truth is that nobody could have won against President Obama. Check after check was sent to ensure a solid victory. Like a little kid bribing children in his/her class with candy, President Obama purchased this election months ago. Just vote for him, and you'll get your check, your phone, your subsidized housing, etc.
Mitt Romney was not a true conservative by any means. President Obama, however, is exceedingly liberal. Call it what you want, I had a tax increase a couple weeks ago, and I'm certainly a middle-class earner. How did your first check look this year? What happened to protecting the middle class? Shall we euphemistically call that his liberal agenda? I prefer to call it what it is, a campaign lie and socialism.Well, I stopped working a couple of years ago because I became disabled for working a full-time manual labor job like I was used to; and I haven't the skills or training or ability for feasible non-manual labor. But yes, I know what you mean, 'cause my husband's paycheck took a big tax increase a few weeks ago too. Our Government can't pass a budget on time, but it sure didn't waste any time biting a chunk out of people's paychecks.
As far as entitlements, I agree with you that Obama purchased the Election. I'm not against entitlements; our Social Security program/Medicare/Medicaid has been effective and necessary for a long time. I'm just against unnecessary entitlements and burdening our system with recipients of entitlements for the sole purpose of adding to Obama's court; and Obama has deliberately added to the burden of paying entitlements by pushing activist purposes into the pot----paying for people's birth control when they already had access to affordable birth control; pushing gay marriage so that partners of gays will have to be covered by companies AND by the military, creating an environment where people who are for controlling immigration are looked upon as racist, thereby adding fuel to the fire of illegal immigration, etc. and etc.Actually, I'm not sure I'm in the minority, and even if I am, I don't care about being "in the minority". Why do you seem to look upon being in the minority as a bad thing? I've been "in the minority" as far as I know for years. I raised my kids while "in the minority" as a single parent. I paid my taxes, but the Government also helped me by the fact that I was in a tax bracket that gave me deductions for my children, etc. So I'm not against Government help for those who work, nor for those who cannot work, NOR for those who cannot find feasible employment. I'm against it for those who think their race or their refusal to work still entitles them to assistance. I worked willingly and faithfully and steadily to support myself and help raise my children.
Maybe you're "in the majority" because you simply don't care; you just go along with whatever Obama says.........reckon? Or you just can't stand being in the minority??
If the "majority" jumped off a building, would you follow them?Yawn. Brenda, your ranting is so tiresome. I don't know why I read this far. I am responding because I am another supporter of a woman's right to choose, for two people of the same sex to have families and rights, and all the other things you are against. I voted for Obama twice and am proud this country has a president of color. I'm assuming from your posts you're blonde, right?
What you are missing is a majority of people agree with Obama on social issues.
I would have LOVED for the GOP to put up a candidate who would have said even "The abortion issue and the gay rights issue can wait... I'm not pushing for ANY laws concerning those two issues. Let's fix our economy"
I would have voted for him in a second.
But the two most important social issues to me are abortion and gay rights. I will not cast a vote for anyone who is going to move them backwards.
I dislike Obama intensely... however he wasn't Mitt Romney so he got my vote. He also got my social moderate fiscally conservative republican husband's vote. So as long as the GOP candidates keep throwing up social issues they are going to lose the white-house. As it stands neither party can get elected without the moderates. Obama appeals more to moderates that Mittens did.Uh that's totally confusing. Why would you dislike Obama? He is FOR abortion and gay "rights", the two issues you said are most important.
And don't give me that song-and-dance about how the Republican Party needs to downplay their stance on the moral issues! They should've taken an even STRONGER stance on those issues by nominating Bachmann or one of the other Candidates who would take the issues to the forefront.
LOLOL sorry but it's just so ironic for a liberal to say the Republican Party should omit the very issues that the Party stands for. Guess it's a good thing they're not that easily swayed; otherwise they would indeed be just another useless piece of political machinery.
I'm telling you that the Democrat Party should delete the immoral issues THEY stand for. Then THEY might regain their place as a valid American political Party. As it is now, like I said before, they stand for nothing good with a personal-agenda-driven man like Obama at their helm.
And the "majority" really doesn't agree with Obama's moral issues. They know right from wrong; they've just been given a free pass now not to even think anymore about the issues. Ya know how some people are, especially the young and impressionable and uninformed----they'll go with the flow of anything that tells them they have no personal responsibility for their actions and that they can blame it on "the establishment", but oh great Obama is setting them free to fly in the face of God and tradition.
I'm pretty sure there's never before been a President who had the nerve to pit people against each other on a racial basis, a gender basis, and one who had the nerve to try to use impressionable kids to further his agenda, pitting them against their parents' teachings. And yes I'm talking about the majority of parents pre-Obama, who were ashamed to spout such carp in public; who actually cared about what their children learned, cared about who influenced them. But now an ambitious sly-tongued activist's been put in a nice suit and groomed for the Presidency, and they've handed over their kids willingly.It shouldn't be confusing Brenda. Just because I agree with him on the two issues that mean the most to me doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.
You have your opinions on what your party should do. I'm telling you as a moderate -which I am- that I will not vote for an extremest... or at least I'll vote for the least extremest of two possibilities. I would assume that many moderates feel the same. The further a candidate moves from center the less likely he is to be elected. That's simple mathematics. Center being "average" the further you move from it the less people agree with you.
Any extremist party is doomed to be outvoted. That's just how things work.
The conservatives are holding on to ideas that just don't work for the majority of people anymore. That's admirable but ultimately limiting... especially in a democracy.
Once public opinion starts to sway it is nearly impossible to swing it back. Those young impressionables are the next generation. God love them they are doing what every generation before them have done... they are changing the scope and definitions of society. You may not like it... but there it is. And conservatives are unlikely to change that any more than they've ever managed to stop it before.I agree an extremist Party is doomed to be outvoted. Eventually. I thought it would happen this last Election. But it didn't. So.......what do you think the run-time of the extremist Obama Party will be?
Will it be before or after the majority of people finally realize that he is promoting the biggest Holocaust of all time against the unborn?Oh Brenda... wanting to fight?
I think that while Obama leans far left he doesn't lean as much as Romney leaned to the right.
Please remember that left and right do work on an "average American" scale.
As Americans in general are starting to "lean left" it changes the bar on what exactly extreme right looks like.
As far as your opinions on abortion... have at them. They don't really concern me as you have no power to enforce them.
@Brenad, the holy right! LOL People who like their constitution the way they like their bible, cherry pick the parts they agree with, while ignoring or interpreting the parts they don't! As far as pitting people against people, I think you have it wrong. It's the baloney of the right wing media and radio broadcasters putting this fear in gullible peoples heads and trying to convince these same gullible people civil war is right around the corner. THe GOP is on the track to go over a cliff and become extinct!
Yeah, the Democratic Party is dead alright. LOL. Congrats to Pres. Obama and VP Biden.
So....are you telling me the Democrat Party has always been for killing unborn babies and anti-Bible, mocking Christianity etc., and for forcing Americans to legally sanction homosexuality?
If so, then I'm mistaken and the Party is just doing what it's always done.
But if I'm right, then what Party is it that has taken over the Democrat Party and promotes Obama and Biden speaking such nonsense and radically-wrong ideas?
Just because they "won" doesn't mean everyone supports all their crap, but those issues are HUGE; otherwise Obama would not have spoken about them in his speech today. Oh wait---------the abortion issue is really HUGE; that's why he avoided talking about it today. When it fully sinks in that he's promoting baby killing, it will be really bad for his historical record. And one of these days, I believe America WILL label him for what he is--------an abortion promoter. In a land known for it's freedom, he will be known for denying the rights of babies to live.
There were many many liberal rights activists there today to make sure he promoted their desires. But not ONE aborted baby. Imagine that.You know Brenda... no one really takes anyone seriously who goes off on emotionally charged nearly incomprehensible rants that have no real meaning and are comprised of nothing except for hyperbole and theatrics.
We get that you don't like the president. We get that you think abortion is a bad thing.
If you want to have an outlet to rant without any meaningful conversation or dialogue may I suggest that a blog or even a diary might be a more appropriate venue?
The purpose of a forum is conversation.
I'll be back if you actually want to debate or even have a conversation... but what you are doing here is neither.@ Brenda - For those who wish to live in a country where government is based on religion and a religious book, move to Iran. Otherwise, read the US Constitution. This country will not become some 3rd world church/state.
Message received, but is this the party of bill Clinton? No, this is a far more liberal party, one that may well win elections but has been more divisive. Democrats are as strong as ever, but their party has shifted to the left. Perhaps the nation has shifted to the left a bit too though.
I think the answer is more clearly that the Republican party has moved so far to the right. Members of their own party have said that. Obama is not as liberal as some like to suggest.
Hi Brenda:
The Dems are emboldened - their secular messiah is strutting like a king because of his re-election. What for me is disturbing, yet not surprising is that there are rumblings to emulate the Dems party platform so that they (Republicans) too will be empowered at all cost, even putting aside the traditional core values...It's because of their core values as to why they didn't get elected. The only constant in this world is change. Survival is based on how well one can adapt to change. The world is changing at an ever increasing pace. If the republican party can't adapt to change, its not going to survive in its present state and with its present core values. If they want the votes, they are going to have to change. This is all in my opinion.
It's because of massive entitlements that President Obama got elected. You vote for the person who signs your check. We have record numbers of people getting a check from Washington. Now, I don't have ANY problem with people receiving their social security, military disability, unemployment, temporary government assistance, etc. What I do have a problem with is people abusing this and then voting for the person who enabled this abuse, President Obama.
Do you have a problem with the government borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it pays people receiving their social security, military disability, unemployment, temporary government assistance? Because that is what the government is doing. See you can't get away from it, the problem isn't just entitlements it is borrowing to spend, The Government Accountability Office warned in a report recently that if cuts are not made to mandatory spending — including Social Security and Medicare — there will be a fundamental gap between spending and revenue as more baby boomers retire.
“Significant actions to change the long-term fiscal path must be taken,” the GAO warned. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism … ustainable
We're screwed.I agree. The government is borrowing money at alarming rates. That is absolutely correct. Both borrowing and entitlements go together.
The Republican Party is no longer the party of Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt (the best Progressive Democrat we had), and Eisenhower. Half Governor Palin, Batsh*t Bachmann, and Boehner are the faces of the Republicans today. The RNC still insists that this is still 1959 and need to get with the times or fade away.
That's what both parties have said when they are in power. The pendulum swings.
Hi Brenda,
I see you're stiring it up again. The real Democrtic party has been hijacked. It certainly is not my grandfathers party any longer. The republican party needs a new plan. They must stop playing Obama's game. You have to remember Obama is a street guy, and he cheats. the Republicans will never be able to compromise with someone who at the last handshake of the deal changes the deal.
The President won by a slim margin but would have you believe that he has a mandate due to his overwhelming win, BULL. The speech yesterday was Obama's declaration of his liberalism. He doesn't have to win anymore elections so as he said to the Russian president "he can be more flexable now".
Liberals won't freely express their beliefs when running for office because they know they won't get elected. Obama has nothing to lose now, so we'll just see how the people really like what they have in a president now. The innocently ignorant constituents, the Occupy Crowd and all the other feel good voters.
The Republicans need to get it together though. They must not try to deal with Obama on a one on one basis. They have to stick with what's in their realm of control. They must use the constitution to their advantage and so on. Stick with the rules. All taxes must come out of the house of representatives, appropreation come out of the house of representatives, and so on.
I believe once people see for themselves just who President Obama is, his popularity will wane.
I hope all is well with you,
ChuckWriter Chuck,
Well said. Well said.
Best wishes.I wouldn't call a 332 to 206 electoral votes a slim margin. It's the electorals that count.
Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured only 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.
The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.
Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s 327,870.
Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney's 4,162,174.
Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779
Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s 1,789,618.
Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.
SO this election was actually closer than anyone on the left wants to let on. Although Barack Obama won re-election handily over Mitt Romney with 332 electoral votes (well more than the 270 electoral votes needed of the nine battleground states that were up for grabs, Obama won eight of them he didn't crush it; instead he won a string of precise narrow victories. The president won because he ran a permanent campaign, keeping his offices open in the battleground states from his 2008 campaign and because he relentlessly defined his opponent.
His was the better campaign and thus scored a tactical victory as election returns show but he has no grand mandate out of the numbers.
He has been re-elected, but his policies did not win the day. Voters didn't turn their faces up to the vision he painted the way they did in 2008. When voters were asked which candidate had a vision for the future, Romney won that question in exit polls, 55 percent to 43 percent. Asked about Obama's signature achievement, health care, voters did not approve. Forty-nine percent said they wanted it repealed in part or whole. Voters also said the federal government was too large.The popular vote was closer, indicating that many of these states could easily have swung in Romney's favor had he been able to earn a few more votes. This election was clear. President Obama won. He did not, however, win withe the overwhelming numbers that your are indicating. It was a clear victory, but it was also a divided electorate, one that did not give a clear mandate.
Exactly, but you won't hear anyone on the left give that sobering assesment because they only cherrypick information that supports their spin and conveniently leave out the facts. And that is why you can't lend credibility to anything they say - I call it "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
Hi Chuck!
It's time all conservatives kept stirring things up. And while I agree with you on most stuff, I don't think it's the Republican Party that needs to change anything. It's the "Democrat" Party that is just plain openly wrong. It's time to impeach. At the very least, it's time to stay firm on our convictions and not let the Left blame us for their crap.
You must be a member of the other ~93,000,000 voters who chose not to vote. Or do you have a 3rd party you like?
Problem here is some entitlements (you listed) are okay and others aren't. Not all people are abusing the system. Many are, but the majority aren't.
I agree that most entitlements are legitimate and fair, but how close was the election? Wasn't it about a 1 million vote lead, by popular vote? Millions bilk the system, and they vote for the person who makes it easiest to do so, President Obama.
"How close was the election"? You don't read the comments in the forum you are commenting in do you? Try reading and remember it's the electoral vote that matters although Obama only won the popular vote by less than 3%."Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured only 333,908 more votes in four key swing states" (see above comment by tsadjatko). That is fewer people than live in the city where I live.
I agree. I haven't said that all entitlements are bad, only that some are abused. I have further stated that people who abuse entitlements vote for the enabler. Can you really say more people are not receiving entitlements under President Obama? More people than ever are receiving entitlements. At worst, millions more are abusing the system. At best, President Obama has been unable to improve the economy, so millions more have gone on public assistance. It's likely a combination of both, but that's not a glowing testimonial for President Obama.
Yes, the election was closer than many would suggest. Does anybody dispute the belief that people abusing the entitlement program tend to vote democrat? Is if possible that this, in itself, contributed to those 333, 908 votes? That's my point.
Can you site your sources for your statistics? I'm certain they don't include the votes that were destroyed, or not counted. Nor does it include the voters who couldn't wait in hours long lines to vote and therefore didn't cast a vote. I know there is currently a study being done investigating the non-count tally and voter suppression in key states.
Brenda: Everyone of the questions you posed is a loaded questions. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
A question that is asked not to find information but with the intent to cause an emotional reaction from the person being asked. The questioner asks usually in an emotional state provoking an emotional response.
Have you stopped hating Obama and the democratic party? is a loaded question. It presupposes you hate him and the democratic party.An appropriate post, PP, and an admirable try. It brings to mind the adage about leading a horse to water.
Eh, you may, if you wish, presuppose that my questions are "loaded" in that vein, but I assert that my questions are very direct, and backed up by very direct facts that anyone with eyes and the willingness to actually watch current events closely can see quite clearly.
If you want an example of a loaded question, (coupled with fake righteous indignation and anger and bullying hand-waving) I'll give you one--------
Hillary Clinton, when asked simply why she was not only NOT transparent to the American people about the murders of 4 Americans in Benghaz, but why the Administration perpetuated a LIE about it-------
Clinton: " Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"
"What difference does it make?!"
Well, she was told later what difference it makes, but her haughty bullying deflected any immediate accountability that could've come from her mouth. And indeed she should know what difference it makes. But she is so intent on continuing the liberal agenda that she ignores the fact that SHE is a servant of the American public, and is not supposed to be a liberal activist.There is nothing wrong with a loaded question if you know how to unload it. If you keep the safety on it won't go off anyway, but like guns, the solution isn't to ban them.
I agree banning them is not the solution, I do agree! I believe in the right to bear arms for sports but for sure for protection. But I also believe people need to take more personal responsibility to keep those guns out of the hands of anyone who cannot or will not use them properly and safely, even if that is themselves!
It is quite clear to me and anyone with "eyes" that the Obama Administration's intent is based NOT on compassion for the Sandy Hook children, but on the entire Administration's agenda to cut out the rights of any group that is Rightwing. Remember his past comments including about conservatives "clinging to their guns and religion"? I remember it. No one should forget it either.
It is not the gun laws that people cannot trust. It is not even our Congress as a whole. It is Obama and his agenda-driven minions that NO ONE can trust. The agenda is anti-Republican. Yet it is not really Democratic either. Ergo the questions of this thread.
You're right. People should know how to unload!
And right now, it's time for conservatives to figuratively "lock and load" in this battle for the rights and freedom of not just Republicans, but for the good of all. Including the unborn. Obama's sanctioning of women's "rights" above the innate rights of the unborn is a holocaust of major proportions. And he does it without batting an eye, and most Democrats do it without batting an eye. Reckon they're too busy viewing Obama in his "brilliance". For shame. It's like they have toothpicks holding their eyelids open so as not to miss any glimpse of his nakedness.
Brenda: So what difference did it make that it was a protester or just a group that wanted to kill some Americans? When intelligence comes in, it's never straight forward. What is the worst possible thing that can happen from this? Are you going to have her fired? She is quitting anyway. Rand Paul said she is culpable. that's why she is leaving. Of course, he never lied before. All politicians say one thing when they are campaigning and then do something else when they get into office. Does that mean they are not being transparent and are lying? What is the worst thing Bengazi gate has done to you? So you still hate Hillary?...that's a loaded question.
If you want to talk about lies, the Bush administration and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, Now there is a whopper of lie.
Probably catch a lot of heat from both sides for this, but the secret is out...The democratic party is what used to be your Republican moderates, with a twist...we don't care who you marry and we do not want to take away anyones rights, whether we agree with them or not....Shhh, don't tell
I doubt that, highly.
But indeed I'm not up on exactly what the Republican Party used to be. However, I can tell you that gays were allowed to engage in whatever perversions they wanted to, so long as they didn't publicly nor personally push it on American citizens. Trying to label their actions as worthy of marriage is a whole other issue, and indeed it's only right that Republicans would oppose that. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even have made it a political issue if the Left didn't flaunt it in the streets and insert it into our schools and try to bully all of America into sanctioning the unsanctionable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate_Republican
The term "Rockefeller Republican" is now somewhat archaic (Nelson Rockefeller having died in 1979), and Republicans with these views are now generally referred to as simply "moderate Republicans" or, pejoratively, Republican In Name Only. The retired four star generals Colin Powell and David Petraeus have both described themselves as "Rockefeller Republicans."[9][10][11] Christine Todd Whitman, former Governor of New Jersey, referred to herself as a Rockefeller Republican, in a speech on Governor Rockefeller at Dartmouth College in 2008.[12] Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, who is a registered Democrat, referred to himself as a "Rockefeller Republican" in a CNBC interview in April 2012.[13]
Brenda, people need to quit judging other people, period. God is the judge, he will do what he says he will do and he knows every thought and every hair on our heads, he understand reasons we could never understand...Love one another, not love those like you...Laws should never be made to only benefit one religion or one belief...This country is for all Americans Brenda, your speeches remind me of the KKK..."Judge not, lest ye be judged"....the KKK?!
Ah, now, indeed your sentence there is an insinuation that is hugely offensive to me. Why don't YOU stop judging?Brenda, move on you're not the _ whisperer.
Brenda, you spout offensive language about the President of the United States of America..DAILY...along with all of those who THINK like YOU, but can not take it when it swings back your way
I remember the kids in school like that...the spoiled brats who thought some how they were entitled to talk to you in a negative way but couldn't take it back at them, like Romney, your MESSIAH!! HA How you like me now, talking like YOU!Um...nope, you still don't get it.
Do you think YOU are the President of the United States? LOL
A citizen has the right to talk about the President. The President is supposed to be a public servant.
A citizen has the right to speak about a political Party.
You, however (like many liberals seem to do these days) have decided to take things personally AND to personally attack me.
If you want to talk about Romney, I don't care.
But you should watch what you say about me personally.
You're not "talking like" me at all. You're talking like you apparently, which is more illustrative of the "spoiled brats" theory you mentioned. YOU decided to say MY speech sounded like the KKK. I never said anything against you personally.
Got it?
Or can you not even understand that ever-so-simple principle of behavior?
P.S. My Messiah is Jesus the Christ. Just so ya know, Romney is a man who ran for the Office of President, just like Obama is a man who ran for President. Neither are the "Messiah". Didn't you know that?I remember when W was President, do you? Were Americans ALLOWED to speak about him in this manner...were the Dixie Chicks? Or were all of us who disagreed labeled UNPATRIOTIC! I said "your speeches remind me of the KKK"...you say "Or can you even understand that ever-so0simple principle of behavioe"....Much the same tit for tat, I think...
I did not think it was "okay" for anyone to trash Bush when he was in office, I do not think it is "okay" to trash any President....If you disagree with policies you state those ideas, use facts and have debates, write your Senators or Congressman, write and sign petitions, your voices should be heard. But acting like rotten spoiled children and not only bashing a President but an entire party, or anyone who voted for a President or entire party is judgement and bullying. I have problems with Obama, although I voted for him...I wanted him to squash the Patriot Act and he gave it bigger powers. I will never agree with ALL things ANY POTUS does, and I will say so, but I will not Judge an entire group of people who think differently than do I...because I have morals, values, integrity, and do not think that I KNOW everything. You started this forum to start a fight, any real answers you and your bully crownies dismiss. I tried to make light, be a little cute, that was obviously wrong of me, I should have not replied at all, I could see a mile away the cards were stacked. Have a nice evening Brenda
PS My Messiah is Jesus Christ as well, and I am tired of being told otherwise. Didn't you know that?There ya go still taking things personally. Wow.
Um...I didn't even know your name when the Dixie Chicks were in the spotlight. So I dunno who labeled them unpatriotic or who didn't. Either way, those are are people who use their platform for a political agenda, people in the public eye who know that their positions can have some sway over people who may not even know anything to the contrary. I, on the other hand, have no platform other than what any citizen has access to------the Republican Party Platform.
So that, and your whole rant, seems to indicate some sort of personal grievance against people.
As far as the Democrat Party, I was asking where it went, because it has radically changed since Obama took it over. That's a simple question, really, a straightforward question. I dunno why most people cannot seem to answer it.
By the way, your President Mr. Obama told all of Congress that they'd be "unpatriotic" if they didn't push his agenda forward. Or didn't you see that speech of his either? (sigh) I think that's the problem----so many people don't watch his speeches, or else when they do, they ignore most of what he says!
And I don't think it's okay for a President to trash conservatives and the Republican Party, nor to trash this Nation like he has and does and will continue to do.
Oh well.
Bye. You have a nice evening too.Yes the Dixie Chicks were allowed to speak about Bush, it just so happened they payed a price for voicing their opinion, it wasn't Bush that made them pay it was the public who got tired of their of their whining.
Don't hear a lot from the Dixie Chicks anymore.Yup. I vaguely remember the controversy.
The public has the right to listen to the Dixie Chicks or not to. Singers don't have a "bully pulpit" like a President does. Even the President shouldn't have one to such an extent.http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?i … amp;page=1
Just days before the bombing began in Iraq, singer Natalie Maines spoke out against the president. "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," she told fans in London.
Maines later apologized, saying her remark was "disrespectful." But country radio stations across the country yanked the trio from playlists, while some protesters resorted to publicly trashing their CDs to demonstrate against the singers' perceived lack of patriotism.
In an interview airing on Primetime Thursday, Maines and her bandmates Emily Robison and Martie Maguire spoke to ABCNEWS' Diane Sawyer about how they feel about the boycott of their music, the personal threats against them, and what led up to Maines' controversial comment.
Maines said she made the remark "out of frustration. At that moment, on the eve of war, I had a lot of questions that I felt were unanswered."Hey, that's nothing compared to the questions that remain unanswered about the current Administration.
Yea, Thousands died, no weapons of mass destruction ever found, our economy tanked because the wars were never budgeted just placed on a credit card...yea that's nothing, what was I thinking..
Brenda: There is a fine line between criticism and defamation of character. In my opinion, I think a lot of what the right wing propaganda machine does is defamation of character. They have no respect for Obama or the office he holds or his staff. Birthers, Muslim, Kenya, Tyranny, tax and spend, etc: These are all mantras of the right wing. Of course the constitution guarantees our freedom of speech, but how do you tell the difference? I know that one can be sued for defaming another's character.
It's obvious, you don't like Obama or his administration just by how you framed your forum. But when you do that, you should expect to be challenged by people from the other side. Not everyone is going to agree with your position. I have a question for you: Is it Obama or you just don't like democrats in general?It is Obama's words and actions and policies that I'm against.
I'm sure he's a very likeable person, personally, in many ways.
I've always been proud to be an American.
Unlike Michelle Obama who said when her husband got elected that it was the first time she she was proud to be an American.
I have loved ones and friends and acquaintances who are Democrats. No, I'm not against them personally! I'm against the principles that the Democrat Platform stands for. I've read 'em (unlike even many Democrats perhaps?) and they're not right. And formerly, Democrat Officials (like even Bill Clinton) did not push radical policies. The current "Democrat" Party does. It pushes radically wrong policies. Not only that, many proponents of it attack Republicans personally! Which is why I'm asking where that Party went. What happened to it? Why do so many of the members think it's okay to attack the principles that this Nation was built upon? Why do so many of them think it's okay to tell a pregnant woman it's okay to kill her baby? Why do so many of them let it slide when their leaders (Obama, Pelosi, etc.,) stand up and speak immorality and blasphemy in public?
Get the difference?In your mind, if you don't mind telling me, what are principals that the democratic party stand for?
Read the Platform.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 … d=pl-share
It is a specifically-Obama-agenda-oriented piece of activism instead of a general Platform. I'm sure it wasn't the same before, because Obama wasn't President before! lol.
So, it has all come under the thumb of Obama's agenda. It not only pushes a hugely Leftist agenda, it accuses the Right falsely and all the while, in the first few paragraphs (if you'll really read it!), the agenda is outlined in one sentence..
It says:
"This election is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two fundamentally different paths for our country and our families."
That echoes Mr. Obama's original announcement years ago that he wants to fundamentally change America.
Read on.
The supposed rights of women and gays is touted, while the rights of the unborn and the rights of other citizens are ignored and discounted.
And the whole thing is one big bunch of activist carp, not a legitimate American Platform.
The Democrat Party has been hijacked by Obama and his cronies. It's obvious, and it's that simple.Brenda: That is the democratic platform for the campaign against Romney. It's over 40 pages in length. I'm sure you didn't read the whole thing. Everything that you are criticizing is your own interpretation. I read it and I didn't get that impression. Two different paths means just a different ideology. How are you going to improve something without changing it? How do you improve America without changing it? I know you want your country back.
"One big bunch of activist crap" is a gross generalization that says nothing other than your biased opinion. The party has no more been hijacked than the Tea Party hijacking the Republican party, which is a fact, not my opinion. Republican's talk smaller government except when they want to control a women's right to free choice for her body.
Here is the link to the GOPs campaign platform from the Democratic point of view. http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/e … e=blog_emsI don't get why the word "activist" has a negative slant anyway. When the hell did that happen?
I must admit, I don't get this whole Benghazigate thing.
I know GOP was furious it didn't get enough traction before the election to turn people against Obama.
Oh well.
Not for anything, but does anyone remember that Mr. Romney held a press conference on the incident within like seconds? How come HE had such good intelligence on it?
And did he not say, in that leaked tape, that he would definitely welcome and take advantage of a terrorist type opportunity?
But it didn't stick.
And the jackals must have their pound of flesh. Their scapegoat.
Susan Rice. She was just the hors d'oeuvre. She was only the mouthpiece. Hardly worth the effort.
Only Obama knows if she was ever his choice for SOS. I personally think it was gonna be Kerry all along.
But wow. An opportunity to ride Hillary Clinton out of town on a rail.
That is just too good to pass up!
Note to Rand Paul: She announced that she would be stepping down months ago. You can't fire her. She already QUIT. And she also accepted full responsibility for the incident. And don't flatter yourself. You would and will NEVER be in any position to fire Hillary Clinton.
The GOP inquisitors didn't get her or even get to her.
She's got bigger cojones than all of them combined.Uh....that may be true; I dunno; I figured she had a woman's body parts.
Especially since women aren't supposed to have "cajones"!
There's a difference between having strength and using one's position to bully citizens. If you want to say she has cajones, okeydokey then, but no woman should be pleased with that label being placed on them.Yeah, well the slobbering praise heaped upon her by all the Democrat congressmen (instead of asking important questions that would get to the truth) no doubt hyped her pride to the extent she made a big mistake when she feigned outrage at a very basic question from Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and said, " ...what difference at this point does it make?”. That statement will haunt her political career untill she dies. It's like when Queen Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake". That's what happens when a woman wields a mans private parts.
I think the entire point of this thread is that the democrats have certainly garnered more power, but their party has also changed, perhaps shifted to the left. Today's democrat party is not what it was 30 years ago. The republican party better resembles what it was 30 years ago. However, many democrats have pointed out that the republican party hasn't adapted to the times, continues to have a platform from the past, and thus, hasn't been able to win as much at the federal level.
Sorry Brenda but Jesus himself voted for Obama:
Romans 13 1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.
Rant all you want but Obama was placed there by God, so you best praise Jesus and sing hallelujah, and if you pray hard enough you might get a Republican next time round.
Don't you love these idiots who probably have never studied the Bible one iota and probably don't even believe in it who pull things out of context to hit you over the head with it, only to show their deep ignorance. In Romans 13 Paul said that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
And then they have the nerve to suggest that Jesus voted for Obama? Yeah, this is someone I don't want teaching my kids Sunday school.
Paul actually said "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right". He never once stated the God limited the power and reach of civil authority in this passage. And Obama never terrorised good works or good people.
Oh and regards "these idiots"..............."And anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell."Continue to misquote scripture out of context - it is what you are good at and that's about all. No main stream Christian theologian would agree with your position (show me one, I can show you many who agree with what I said) and common sense dictates it is insane. According to your original interpretation the founders should never have rebelled against England, Blacks should never have strived to be free, and on and on we go. To say the pro abortionist "Christian" Obama never terrorized good works or good people is a joke. Any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. I'd say his approval of Millions of abortions every year qualifies.
You know... The divinity can take it up with each individual when and if they ever get to met him. I don't like Obama... but I am glad he is there to protect me from individuals who would use their version of God or Christianity to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.
Frankly it's none of your business whether women get abortions or not. That's between them and God. You simply aren't qualified to sit in judgement... And if you want to get into a verse war about that we can.Frankly, I never said it was my concern - the Bible clearly states it is God's concern (and that not subject to interpretation) and was pertinent to the remarks of Dhead which is what was being discussed sincehe is theone who introduced scripture.- you're comment is just plain irrelevant. But nice attempt at a personal attack.
If you think it was a personal attack go ahead and hit that report button. Otherwise I just consider accusations of personal attacks as whining.
Now we get to the nugget of your problem. Because Obama believes in personal rights and freedoms of the individual, which naturally would include their right to choose abortion, he sucks satan's toes. And because Republicans like your do not approve of abortion, God is on your side. So when Paul says that all authorities are placed by God, you now have a theological problem. So what you do is deny what Paul said in the plain reading and try to come up with a mealy mouthed get out to reconcile this problem.
Thing is the most important problem facing America is the economy. Anything else is a side circus.Really? so then why does a non believer jump to citing scripture in a discussion and then when he sees he's in over his head jump to the economy declaring what he brought up is a side circus.? So wacked.
Who said I was a non-believer? Who said I was in over my head? Not me. It's you that denies what Paul clearly stated because it offends your Christianism.
And yes it is the economy that matters most.The obvious need not be stated by anyone.
"Because Obama believes in personal rights and freedoms of the individual, which naturally would include their right to choose abortion, he sucks satan's toes."
I couldn't care less about abortion, but where did you come up with the rest?O.K. Let's get off of the religious kick. Scripture is subject to interpretation just like the 2nd amendment is. Someone made the statement that the economy is the biggest problem and implied that Obama has done nothing about it. I find it interesting that the people who advocate for smaller government are the same ones that want the president to create jobs. The truth is presidents don't create jobs. Jobs are created by supply and demand. Romney said that he would create 12 million jobs in his first year as president...Yeah right...until he got into office and reality sat in.
I believe the Democratic party has made it's transition to the new "progressive Democratic Party" and it seems to me that scince the reelection of Barack Obama the liberal shift is quite apparent. Liberals are coming out of the woodwork.
Hillary's visit to the committee was sickening with every Democrat praising her as if she were a national treasure. Her questioning was a farce. The Repuplicans questioning time was cut short and it was clear that Hillary will not be telling the truth about what happened that night in Benghazi while Chris Stevens and the others waited for help of some kind to come.
It makes me sick,,,They were all watching the attack in real time. The whole bunch of them including our selfish president should be thrown out of office as soon as possible.
And as to the point made by Disappearinghead, yes it is true that God allows our leaders to be put into office. It doesn't mean that God approves of that person. When God's people continue to turn their backs on him by taking prayer out of the schools and the ten commandments out of the public eye people are giving God a message. If people continue to turn their backs on God then it's no surprise that God is turning away from us. I believe he has given us over to our own desire.The *Democratic* Party is very much alive and well and looking after people's rights. Note the "ic" on the end of the word.
When idealogy has no basis in the votes that one is attempting to attract, this is the outcome. Those who pride themselves in being from a multi-generation family of Democrats do not seem to see that their party in terms of it platform and values was highjacked way back in the 1960's. If one were to read Obama's philosphy of the world and how America should react without knowing his party affiliation, they would determine him to be a "progressive" on the minimal side and a high level socialist to a larger degree. At one time, both parties had the same visions but with disagreement in how we get there. We were a country with a common basis of values. That is no longer true. Those in leadership of the Democrat Party today, like Obama, are more interested in class warfare and division along with painting the other side as the culprits of such work. All progress comes with some level of compromise and leadership...this president has neither nor does he care. The framework of our nation, The Constitution, has stood because succeeding generations look to it as a guide...a centerline which at its very essence is formatted to protect the people from the tryanny of an out of control government. Obama and his ilk have no regard for that document or those associated with it. To him, it is an old, an out-dated inconvenience that he would run through the shredder in a heart beat if he thought that he could get away with it that easily...he is working on it too. All this from a man who supposedly graduated "Magna Cum Laude" from Harvard Law School yet has little respect for the law and apparently none for the Constitution. I would expect far more from a true scholar of the law. He will load everyone on the Ark that is the Democrat Party not to save them but to use them for his own devices down the road. ~WB
Well said Wayne, but sad that more eyes aren't opened to what you say. It's probably already too late.
Wayne Brown: You are absolutely right. That's why he was a professor at Harvard and taught Constitutional Law, so that he could rip the constitution to shreds and become a dictator tyrant! That's why he wants everybody to have health insurance, passed bills for women's rights, saved the economy from collapse, passed consumer laws to keep you from getting ripped off from the credit card companies, bringing the troops home, and wanting to pay our debt that congress ran up from last year, just to mention a few. You better have your AR15's ready.
@peoplepower73....LMAO....Well stated! Fear is a crazy thing! It started when the POTUS was elected his first time. Fear of afirmative action all over again! Too much limbo, beck and hannity! lol
Peoplepower 73 Good Democrat that you are, drunk on the coolaid of liberalism, why pray tell would Mr. Brown need his AR15. Are you sending the Anarchist to shut him up. If reason won't work, liberals turn to threats.
Writer Chuck: I was making a point by being facetious, but I guessed you missed the point. I imagine it's you people who want to arm yourself's with AR15, not me.
peoplepower 73, Your humor was in bad taste. I also don't much care for the term "you people". I really don't own an AR15, but see nothing wrong with it. You see, I honor the founders and appreciate the second Amendment. It bothers me when liberals start toying with the constitution and calling it a living document.
Yep. That's why they have amendments to the constitution, so it can never be changed. The only constant in life is change. If systems can't adapt to change, they die...that's a law of nature! It's called survival of the fittest. The Republican Party is a conservative party, which means it is very difficult for them to change. See it takes less effort to stay the same, but when the world is changing and you are not, you are in trouble.
Hey Wayne, I'll let you debunk PP73's delusions, I frankly have better things to do right now than play whisperer.
I'm still trying to figure out how the democrat party of the 1960s ( the party I grew up knowing & despising) changed it's image and co-oped the minority vote. The party with leaders the likes of George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, David Duke. So many party leaders that owned white pointed hoods that you couldn't count them all.
Now they call themselves the party of inclusion. The party of the oppressed.
Give me a break !!!! It's the party of Mass - DeceptionNo exaggeration in those statements, thanks for making that very clear.
BloodRedPen: President Johnson passed the civil rights movement and all the southern democrats jumped ship and became republicans. Those are the same people who wore the white pointed headed sheets. They and their brethren are now the extremest part of the republican party. They call themselves the Tea Party
That's why they don't like Obama. Sure they say they like him personally,but don't like his policies. Translation: They don't like him because he is black and he and his family live in the White House. That's why they want their country back. Anything else is B.S. That's why this forum was written so that you people could vent your feelings about him without saying what you really think. And you want to call me delusional!peoplepower 73, To make a statement like that tells me that you niether personally know any tea party people or what they stand for. Democrats that make statements like your last post are always proving who they are, they pull that ugly race card like a gun only it's not covered by the second amendment. I think I am going to look into joining the Tea Party. So far they are the closest thing to the true meaning of " We the People" that I have found for a long time.
I don't have to know Tea Party people. I see it on the news with the signs they carry and what they say. They say "I want my country back from big government, but don't take away my social security and medicare."
How did I know you were going to say I pulled the "ugly race card." If you would have listened to Obama's inaugural address, that was the theme of the speech: "We the people." He said it throughout his address. But I can almost bet on it, you didn't watch it.
You are right about the race card not being covered by the 2nd amendment, but it is covered by the first amendment. Just like you say terrible things about Obama. You have the right to, just like conservatives that make posts that prove who they are, but are afraid to admit how they really feel about Obama. It's something like gays being in the closet and afraid to come out. it must be terrible to harbor those feelings.Yes Sir - The party of Mass - Deception
PP73 do you have anymore extremist trump cards left. It seems that you've played them all. Just on this thread. You really should save some for later.In your mind what have they deceived more so than the republican party? I don't believe they are extremist trump cards, just the truth. You know they say the truth will set you free. I have a 43 year old son who came out about two months ago and he couldn't be happier and neither could his mother and I. So just let it all hang out! I still have plenty to say, but I might write a hub about how this country has become a nations of winners and losers, with no room for compromise.
It is a shame that they cannot stand on their own merits, always tilting at windmills.
The race card is only covered by the first amendment if you're a Democrat, and you know it. You are now claiming that I say terrible things about Obama, but your lying, if you go back and re-read these post you are the one that is seething with anger and accusations. By the way I watched and listened to President Obama's speech. Generally a president will use the inaugural speech to communicate a message of uniting the people. His theme was "We the Government". I am just going to say that you and I will never see eye to eye on ideology. I hope we can agree to disagree.
I'm sure what you are saying about ideology is true. We can agree to disagree. But what you said about Obama's speech is false. He never said once "We the Government." Here is the link to his script for the speech. I just read the whole thing and not once did he say what you said. Please read it. And yes I'm angry for all the B.S. that has been perpetrated against this man for being a black democratic President. And in spite of all of that he has still been successful and that just bugs the hell out of people with your ideology, including the right wing talk shows that spout volumes of misinformation 24/7. And they have the gall to say I drank the kool aid! Here is the link to his speech, if you dare to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 … =b85fa54df
I don't think you drank the Kool-aid, I think you may have made the kool-aid.
Iwhoisit: I'm going to take that as a compliment, but if it's not, please let me know.
It isn't meant as an attack or a compliment, more as a description.
peoplepower 73, Thank you for agreeing to disagree. As I said in my post to you i watched the presidents speech, and i heard what he said. I know that he didn't say "we the government",, what I said was said derisively. His tone since the election has been its my way or the highway. there is no compromise in his dealings with the Republicans.
Have the Republicans compromised with him? They have blocked his every move. He has had to compromise all kinds of legislation to get it passed the house republicans!
Have we forgot about the Harry Reid road block policy. He sets on every bill the house passes to him. AKA - No budget since 2009
PP73, Give me a break - he compromises nothing. The senate has blocked every bill the house passes including budgets and Obama could have passed anything he wanted his first two years but chose not to and in so doing broke promises to his own constituencies (try imigration reform?) instead...can't you show any respect for the facts?
Read them and weep: http://www.woodcountydemocrats.com/inde … ;Itemid=96
peoplepower 73, It's been great debating you, but I have to disagree with your line of thought totally. You're a great guy, have a nice weekend.
But the Occupy movement was just a bunch of hippie, stoner kids who were unemployed and mooching off the government....?
Brenda, your right...you could come up with a lot more. That was a pretty good start though!
The Constitution is always subject to interpretation as is the bible. In fact there is a very common saying, "even the devil can quote the bible". If you know your history you will note that orginally there was a little thing called the "Articles of Confederation". It did not hold up and had to be thrown out and hence we have the Constitution. The reason being is it could not grow with the United States as it grew and prospered. The fouding father knew that or hoped that as time went on things would change and there would need to be news laws and regulations put into context and others taken out. A fluid government allows for growth. The Bible as always is filled with wonderful STORIES, that have good points and lessons to live and learn by but as for being put into a literal sense, unless you were there or you yourself is God or one of the disiciples then you don't know what was going on on in their head, just like in any story you are not the author so your feedback is your opinion not the literal truth. With all that being said the original quesiton is some what true I believe that both sides have gone far left and far right. We used to be closer together with a few main differences but the spectrum has run wild. Now people condemn you before you even get a chance to state your opinion you are labeled Republican or Democrat. I am here to say that not all Republicans and/or Democrats are so far down on their own spectrum that they won't listen. I enjoy hearing why the other side thinks about issues and why they think that way. But as the orginally question asked it is getting harder and harder to hear the actual question that is being asked without it turning into a religious or gun battle. Just look above the comments the question was about where did the democratic party go, and we are quoting scripture and so on and that is exactly why either side stops listening, we have all become ADHD and can't seem to focus on any one tasks for more then a second. Therefore, not getting anything done and shutting out many times good ideas from people that have a good thought or plan but fill it up with ideals that don't have anything to do with the problem.
Brenda Durham: Every question that you asked and your comments following the questions, beg for the democratic party to be the way they were before 2008, the losers. Why, because you want the republican party back in office. But they got a rude awakening this time around and now they are even pandering for the immigrants vote. The difference is the liberal said this is what we can do for you minorities and the minorities voted for the democrats. The republicans are saying we need your vote, so that we can win elections. Oh by the way what is that you want?
Yes we know the democrats said here is what we will do for you. That's what democrats do, buy loyalty at the expense of the middle class.
Oh, but that can't be. President Obama campaigned that he was a supporter of the middle class, really. I pay more in taxes now, and I'm certainly not rich.
Good point.
You are right....they said here's your cell phone and your check and here's a place to stay and no just move in and don't worry we will take care of everything.
Just vote for us eternally.
We need to just get real.
The party symbols need to change.
The GOP needs to be Diary of a Wimpy Kid and the Democrats need to be a bull defecating.
Then we will be in reality.I think the better question would be is the Republican party dead. It is the Republican party that can't seem to win a Presidential election. And they are out of touch with mainstream America. And I don't think they will win the White House in 2016 either.
There are some threads that've been asking that question.
I thought it was high time the status of the Democrat Party was put into question. That Party is, after all, the one that's fallen at the hands of something unlabeled as of yet.
Ergo, this thread.I really don't support either party. I don't think either party has the best interests of America at heart. I think all of the politicians are out for how many more dollars they can put in their pocket. But a great thread anyway Brenda. It makes people think.
Brenda: Their is an Indian saying: You don't really know someone until you have walked a mile in their moccasins! My 43 year old son came out at around Thanksgiving of last year. He knew he was gay for most of his life, but was afraid to tell anybody. Now that he has come out, he is much happier, his partner is happier, and we as his parents are much happier.
What would you do if you had a gay child? Nature never does anything in a straight line, just look around you. it is constantly trying new and different things. Conservatives want to legislate nature and it won't work. There is a natural order to everything and if you screw with it, you lose.
Change scares conservatives, but change is the only constant in the universe. You are afraid to accept the fact that demographics of this country are changing and that is why you posted this forum to ridicule the changes that are taking place. There is another law in nature, it has to do with survival of the fittest and how well any living thing can adapt to change. There is another Indian saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!Conservative aren't afraid of change that is just another typical liberal talking point. We are not for change simply because it makes it easier for someone else the change has to make sense for everybody. Liberals put people in groups because it is easier to stir up a group than it is individuals.
"Conservatives aren't afraid of change"? Quick! Define "conserve"!
Really, how about calling liberals: fascist, socialist, communist, marxists, tyrannical, homo, baby killers? Aren't those groups? What groups do liberals put conservatives into? The name Conservative connotes conserving the statusquo . You tell me what is it that you are conserving? Because I can sure as hell tell you what liberals are liberal about!
Yes really, I didn't say liberals put conservatives in groups. If you reread you will see what I said not what you think I said. Calm down you don't want your blood pressure to rise.
This is what you said: "Liberals put people in groups because it is easier to stir up a group than it is individuals." What people and groups were you referring to? Are you saying they put themselves into groups, so they can stir themselves up?
Change doesn't scare me. I just don't believe change is always good. I trust our founding fathers a lot more than I trust those in Congress now.
I don't want to legislate nature.
I'm simply a citizen who thinks all Americans should be called to responsibility about what they tout as right and wrong via our legal system, and we should never have the right to force wrong upon people disguised as right.
People aren't trees or animals, as your post would seem to suggest.
People are capable of making choices.
And indeed it's rather tiresome when liberal-minded people seem to want to assume that a straight person knows nobody who's gay nor knows nothing about what homosexuality is.
I know gay people who simply want to be treated like the people that they are instead of being used by the liberal agenda activists to legalize homosexual unions. I know gay people who want prayer and encouragement to help them change their lives for the better instead of staying stuck in a wrong lifestyle. They're sick of being used by the Left. No wonder they don't "come out" OF that lifestyle; they're ridiculed and assaulted by bias from the very people who should understand their dilemma.There is so much sickening Fox News-style spin going on in this post that it's giving me whiplash.
Actually, Fox News doesn't say much about homosexuality.
And at least one of their "reporters" openly defends homosexual "rights".
So don't accuse me of getting any ideas from Fox News in this regard.
I've been conservative longer than Fox News has even been around.
How long have you been watching Rachel Madcow?
Although, yes indeed I find Fox News very good overall.The only TV news sources I go to are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, because they show the news exactly how it was intended to be seen: through tears of laughter.
In other words, you don't want to think seriously about issues. Is that correct?
Nope. Humor and seriousness aren't mutually exclusive, you know. In fact, when the two meet, it's often called "satire"!
I prefer truth coupled with appropriate sarcasm.
Humor isn't serious enough for truth in most cases.If you say you want truth, then why do you watch Fox News? Shouldn't you be reading a news source that actually has, you know, legitimate credentials, like BBC or Huffington Post?
They're sure as hell more reliable than Fox News. Or CNN and MSNBC, but mostly Fox News.
The national inquirer is more reliable than FOX news.
The BBC is a biased, corrupt organisation that actively protects pedophiles. I'm afraid we're stuck with the alternative media.
The Jimmy Savile scandal revealed the less than attractive nature of our public broadcast system. He was an incredibly popular DJ and television presenter in the 60s, 70s and 80s who abused hundreds of young girls and boys back-stage, and in orphanages and hospitals, even dying children. What is amazing about this is that his behaviour was quite well known to the BBC and the people around him, but nothing was done about it because of his star power.
The Huffington Post is as liberal as Fox is conservative.
Ah, but the difference is still like night and day! The Huffington Post, while very opinionated, at least does their research using credible sources and cites their work for you to check.
Fox News barely does any research, and what research they do do (doo-doo, tee hee) is taken from the least scholarly sources imaginable. And that's only when they bother to cite their sources. Which isn't often.
Rachel Maddow would school any "reporter" on Fox News. The only one who seems reasonable on that network is Chris Wallace. Otherwise, you probably would find more informed reporting from The Daily Show.
So, other than opinions you disagree with, please cite a few of what must from your assessments be the miriad of factual errors put forth by Fox news. If it is such an unreliable source I have no doubt you will be able to present current examples from the last few days. Generally my impression of those railing against the network is that they have never really watched it, making their claims that they know it to be an unreliable source, unsubstantiated. They just don't want Fox to be right, but can't actually find factual error. Would this be true of you?
Stuck in a wrong lifestyle?
Where do you get your information? Michele Bachmann's husband?
It's not a lifestyle, it's life.
It's not wrong.
It's a right.
And it's already covered by anti-discrimination laws.
Long since time to grant our LGBT brothers and sisters their full rights as citizens of these UNITED States and of the loving universe.Brenda: The want to be treated like the people they are which is homosexuals people and they want homosexual unions. Homosexuality is not a choice. Homophobia is a choice. I'm not suggesting people are trees. I'm saying the culture is changing and you can't handle it. The right wing doesn't know how to relate to the changes because it is against their values and belief systems. So when you ask the questions is the democratic party dead, I think you better look in a mirror and look at your own party. It's the one that is dying!
No, actually, peoplepower73, most of them want to have hope.
And those who do not want hope, need it nevertheless.
And if they're not held to any moral rules, they'll have no hope.
It is the same with anyone else.
If people aren't told that they can get forgiveness for their sins and change their lives, many of them will stay trapped in that sin.
That's what laws are about. Both God's laws and man's laws. They're about responsibility, hope, repentance, redemption.
I suppose ya think it would be great if there were no laws against lying or fraud or theft, etc.
But that would be too tempting. We could pick and choose whether to sin or not, yes, but it would be easier to sin; isn't it always?!
And after a while, that freedom to do whatever we wanted would eat away at us.
For we would have no legal reason to change our behavior, no rule to say we have to think of any consequences, and no recourse to satisfy our consciences; only a way to dull it and dismiss it. What we think is freedom would be our prison.Was I the only one who heard that as....
"The left tries to tell us all what we need and I hate it! Instead, let ME tell everyone what they need!"
Ironic how you subscribe to the "Hope and Change" philosophy.Cody, I am not sure you would know what was good for you if you saw it.
Brenda: You never answered my question. I'll ask it again: "What would you do if you found out you had a gay child." From your post, I can tell you never had because you are speaking in hypotheticals and tap dancing all around the issue. I don't suppose anything. I'm living with it. You are the one who is supposing. The questions you asked in the beginning of this forum are a list of suppositions.
As far as living with laws, I'm a law abiding citizen. The republicans have removed laws that got us into this mess. Google Glass-Stegall and learn about deregulation by the Gramm Leach Bliley act and then learn about what really caused the financial meltdown. That's all republican want to do is remove laws that prevent fraud and corruption so that they can privatize everything under the guise of smaller government, when in fact they are causing the largest transfer of wealth to the those who already have wealth. There is your hope and change!
Related Discussions
- 129
The Hill. Opinion: The 'Scared Majority'.
by Tim Mitchell 22 hours ago
The ‘scared majority’ could deliver a landslide victory for Trump by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor published at The...
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 36
IS IT TYRANNY PEEKING? Part 2
by Credence2 3 years ago
A little background......https://www.yahoo.com/news/americas-pol … 02936.html"More alarming, though, is that some of Trump's fellow Republicans are advocating for GOP-held legislatures to overturn the will of the voters in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — where Biden won, and...
- 156
The AIM of the DEMOCRATIC Party in America
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 months ago
In recent decades, the Democratic Party has become increasingly leftist. Examples of these are the decriminalization of marijuana, lax rules regarding criminals-there are no jail time for petty crimes, & the proliferation of illegal immigrants to the United States among other...
- 37
For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 18 months ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
- 70
Democrats Are Not Socialists
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Really? Prove it! What do democrats NOT agree with as far as socialism? What principles DO the democrats stand with?Wondering!