jump to last post 1-34 of 34 discussions (157 posts)

BOYCOTT ALL REPUBLICANS

  1. profile image0
    woolman60posted 7 years ago

    Show your support and Boycott the Republican Party

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image91
      Stevennix2001posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      why should we?  and let alone how is that important?  don't get me wrong, i could care less about both parties, as they're both ran by corrupt a**holes that could care less about the common person like us, and are only out for themselves.  That's why you'll notice in EVERY presidential election the candidates spend more time saying how bad the other guy is versus the actual issues.  therefore, why should we care?  what makes you think any other party is better than the republicans?  they're both ran by greedy and self centered jerks.  therefore, if you want me to believe the republican party is the worse, your going to have to explain to me why first.

      1. saddlerider1 profile image72
        saddlerider1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I was going to comment but you have taken the words ride of this saddles mouth. Hear Hear...well put. ....Bravo....I'm behind you all the way, of false promises and their to serve themselves not the people.

      2. Elpaso profile image59
        Elpasoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I think you missed out on the most historic campaign and election this country every had. Barack Obama never had a bad word to say about any of the other candidates. And to this day he tries to work with everyone to make this country a better place for us all. Of course, he is a politician. But, our responsibility is to pick the people we can to run OUR country. You have just as much responsiblity to this a better country as the politicians do. If you think you have to, pick the best of the worst. But, pay attention and vote.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      if you boycott republicans, and think that democrats are going to make things better...

      ... boy... were you born yesterday? or are you just blind?

      Boycott all Republi-crats and vote for a third party. And fast.

      1. Sab Oh profile image55
        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The "are you blind?" thing is old and really unproductive.


        And I hate to break it to you but no third party is going to accomplish anything much any time soon.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          OH man, thanks for clearing that up Sab. That was awesome how you enlightened me.

          The "hate to break it to you" thing is pretty old and really unproductive as well, jerk.

          1. Sab Oh profile image55
            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I'll thank you to avoid personal insults.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Once again the 'ol Pot-Kettle scenario.

          2. AEvans profile image79
            AEvansposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Be careful of the words you speak and do not get carried away with insults some of the words you have been speaking could get you banned.

            Be constructive when posting and try not to offend anyone, it is a debate not a place to abuse each other.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I could never afford to buy a Republican anyway. :-)

    4. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      are you progressive socialist?

    5. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Only the RINOs.

    6. steve8miller profile image82
      steve8millerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Here here, you have my support. As well as 97% of Americans support as well. Remember they spend big bucks on the net, so it may look like they have more followers than they really do. We just need a bigger voice than them. Perhaps that is our character though, we do not believe in the insanity that they tend to bank on, time and time again. Notice I said "bank on" lol

    7. AdsenseStrategies profile image75
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What does this even mean?

    8. TMMason profile image69
      TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Too late... we are boycotting Progressives, already.

      Your welcome to join in though.

    9. RebelFollower profile image58
      RebelFollowerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Got a better Idea, how about we boycott all the socialist liberals and you? And I suppose you can add the reps in to...get a clue dude, all politicians including your beloved Barack Hussein Obama are corrupt...what needs to be done is go back to to the beginning and run things the way they were meant

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Brilliant

  2. Sab Oh profile image55
    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Say wha?

  3. Jim Hunter profile image61
    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago

    Boycott all boycotts!

  4. lovemychris profile image67
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    I'm with you.

    Get them the hell out of here.

    Go to Dubai with Cheney...live like you want there!!
    No taxes on your income. Servants to do your dirty work.
    You never have to associate with a "plebian" or a dirty liberal. Or a person of color, save to boss them around.

    Go away. America would be better off without you.
    And all those people who are WITHOUT INCOME, so Repubs can better their chances at re-election: remember WHO did this to you!

    Party of no. Party of Corporate control. Party of you go to war, I have better things to do. OUTTAHERE!!!!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Every single one of your arguments could be made against the democrats.

      1. lovemychris profile image67
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Really? Who is trying to do something bout all of them?
        Who is standing in the way?

        Pretty obvious, and pretty obvious why.

        Just think what hero's they will be should they win in November, and then implement everything the Dems are trying to do now!

        They are the worst kind of snakes I've ever seen. The Brood of Vipers.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ugh, i hope they don't win in november

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I just wanted to add that "passing legislation" does not mean "good for society"...

          If it did then hitler woulda been awesome

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Silly, absurd, nonsensical, outrageous...

            I'm gonna run out of adjectives if I keep going, let's just call this what it it - your worst post ever, and that's saying something.

  5. Flightkeeper profile image73
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    What are you supporting when you boycott the Republican Party? Communism? Socialism? Your OP is incomplete.

    1. Evan Hutchinson profile image78
      Evan Hutchinsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What are you supporting when you vote for the 'Pubs? Racism and plutocracy?

      1. Flightkeeper profile image73
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Can you point out that platform on the official Republican Party website?  Because if you can't you're really not contributing to any serious discussion are you?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          as much as i hate democrats AND republicans, you're asking Evan Hutchinson to do something that you didn't do yourself.

          Can you point to the platform on the official democratic website that says they support communism and socialism?

          I mean, I agree, the Democrats are Socialists, but all that hutchinson did was do the same thing you did.

          Republicrats are nonsense - vote for a third party.

  6. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    Forget parties.  Learn to think for yourself and parties won't matter.

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Republican candidates should be boycotted because among other reasons they have tried to block just about every Obama program from health reform to economic recovery measures without offering their own program in the public interest. If for no other reason they should be boycotted for scuttling the unemployment compensation extension recently passed by the House and scuttled in the Senate. Republicans also have a sorry record on environmental issues according to the League of Conservation Voters.

    http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/

    http://michiganmessenger.com/35182/hoes … ion-voters

    Pete Hoekstra skips votes on unemployment compensation extensions:

    http://michiganmessenger.com/39323/hoek … nsion-vote

    1. Flightkeeper profile image73
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So the Republican candidates should be boycotted because they offer voters an alternative platform to what the Democrats offer? lol

      What happened to being tolerant to diversity? Was it all just lip service?

      I guess it was! lol

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The Republicans really haven't offered credible alternatives to many problems--health care, Social Security, tax reform, anti-recession measures or much of anything else. The GOP is in disarray, trying to take advantage of the Tea Party movement and voter dissatisfaction and fears about unemployment and the national debt. They haven't offered a coherent program other than trying to sabotage just about every Obama proposal.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Who decides creditability?

          Are democrats saying there are no credible solutions offered from the other side? I will say this again, it is not the job of the opposing party to ensure that the other parties agenda is satisfied. It seems to me that irregardless of what is offered by republicans that the democrats and the POTUS will ignore it in favor of their agenda.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You have a point about it not being the job of the opposing party to ensure that the other party's agenda is satisfied.  However, the Republicans recently had six years of free reign and offered up tax cuts for the wealthy, two ill-conceived and unnecessary wars, and a failed attempt to privatize social security. 

            Since then, they've offered up nothing new, so why would we want to revisit that?

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              How do you know what they have or have not offered up? This is my problem with having these types of discussions, You and I have no earthly idea what is being offered, we can listen to each side and debate what they are saying but how do we know they are telling us the truth.

              I do not like what I see happening in Washington, I do not want more government. That is what the democrats are offering, there is a significant slide away from that big government plan, whether the republicans have anything to offer remains to be seen but what Obama is offering is disliked in a big way.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Are you saying you have no idea what the Republicans did when they controlled the presidency and Congress for six years?

                I'm saying that I've seen nothing new since then, and I surely wasn't pleased with their recent performance, so why give them another chance now?

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I didn't say that.

                  I know you haven't seen anything new, I haven't seen anything new, but it doesn't mean that there isn't anything new. You are aware that Bush cannot ever be elected again, right? Just as Obama is a different type of democrat than Bill Clinton is, so goes the republican party.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Okay, then I guess I'll be on the lookout for that. Should this "new" and "different" type of Republican ever decide to come out of hiding and share those "new" ideas, I want to spot it before it darts back into hiding.  wink

            2. Sab Oh profile image55
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "tax cuts for the wealthy"

              Tax cuts for all tax payers.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, but the wealthy received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

                I'm really not here to rehash all of that; it's old news.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I am actually surprised that the NY Times wrote a reasonably objective story. The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes, this isn't disputable. If that group gets a tax cut its only fair considering 40% of taxpayers pay no income tax.

                  I benefited a great deal from the tax cuts and am by no stretch of the imagination rich.

                2. Sab Oh profile image55
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  The people who pay the most benefitted the most from a tax cut? Shocking!

                3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  your argument makes no sense. OF course the rich benefit the most by a tax break - they make more money. Right now the rich pay the most in income taxes, and thus, when the rate goes down, they get the biggest break.

                  It's like 3 people go out to lunch and the bill is $100. the rich man promises to pay for 60% of the bill, the middle class pays for 30% and then the poor pays for 10%. When the store gives a discount of $10, the rich man gets to pay $6 less, the middle only saves $3, and the poorest only gets a benefit of $1.

                  Then, a la PrettyPanther, the poor and middle class yell "unfair unfair!! the rich guy gets more money!!! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

                  ... and then the rich guy stops showing up to lunch, and the middle class gets stuck with 75% of the bill, and the lower class gets 25%...

                  1. Misha profile image78
                    Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Nah, IRS brings the rich in at gunpoint smile

                  2. livelonger profile image97
                    livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    The rich guy stops showing up at lunch because he has a team of 5 chefs that make him lunch daily as he flies around in his private jet. Besides, that diner didn't serve caviar anyway.

              2. lovemychris profile image67
                lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The repubs are not for tax cuts for all. ONLY for the rich. The middle class has to make up for all that money staying at the top. Just google "graph of income disparity from 2000-2008"

                It's not too hard to see who Bushco was working for....it will take centuries to undo their damage. Centuries, and you're dam right those who benefitted the most should now have to pay for it, not the ones who went under!

            3. Sab Oh profile image55
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "two ill-conceived and unnecessary wars"

              Afghanistan was unnecessary?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The necessity of the war in Afghanistan is debatable.  Let's leave it at that.

                1. Sab Oh profile image55
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I do not agree.

                2. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  The way it is being conducted is objectionable! At some point America decided that not killing the enemy was a good thing.

                3. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                  Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  And the likelihood of "success," however defined is even more debatable.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I have to agree with you especially since we don't seem to understand that a live combatant is a dangerous combatant.

        2. JON EWALL profile image71
          JON EWALLposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Ralph Deeds

          wake up and find the truth   propaganda has eaten most of your brain
          sad, sorry state of uncontrollable illusions

          The Republicans have been shut out of most of the legislation that president Barak Obama has signed into law. Republican amendments in every piece of legislation has been rejected by the Democrat majority. Open and transparent government as promised by Obama apparently is nowhere in sight. Bipartisan surely is not a priority with the Obama administration and this Congress.
          Just remember that every time Obama states that the Republicans are holding up legislation, Obama is not being truthful in every aspect. Obama criticizes the Republicans for playing politics and using politics for political positioning  for the upcoming elections. The Republican leadership are willing to pass legislation only if the pay-go legislation is being adhered too. The news media frequently reports only a half truth story about  the Republicans efforts to stop new spending by increasing the deficits.

          It was reported that congress will not present a spending budget for 2011, REALLY. The last time that occurred was in 1974 , wonder what excuses was used then for congress to neglect their duties. The importance to producing a budget in these troubled times to control government spending just shows how open and transparent the Democrat controlled majority Congress and the Obama administration  disregards their constitutional duties.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I hate Republicans, don't get me wrong, but I hate Democrats, too.

            When Nancy Pelosi announced to the world "we need to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it", I lost all respect for Democrats. Talk about tyranny.

            Obama's trying to play to the idea that the Republicans are holding up the legislative process... even though that's the entire point of the Constitution: if enough people don't like the legislation, they block it. ... that's why the Amendment process is so hard (unfortunately, every just ignores it anyway and then changes the definitions of key phrases through the Judicial branch).

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            From here it looks like Obama held out the olive branch and the Republicans tried to stick it up his ass. Here's a video of Jim Demint's notorious "It will break him" comment:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0xrW2KE … r_embedded

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Has anyone besides me noticed that the media talking heads are much more freely using words like 'ass' and 'hell' and 'damn' ever since Obama said his now infamous 'ass to kick' comment?  Or are they just hitting my ear more noticeably?

              And Ralph, that olive branch was pretty forked, trey forked at the least, and it's quite silly to point to one Republican as an example of the entire Republican Congress -- kind of like you shouldn't judge the whole Black Panther party by just one members rant about killing white people and they babies -- or at least so we are told to believe. 

              No doubt the BP rant is on youtube, but it has made me sick enough hearing the foul words on the news, so I won't look it up and link it for you.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I could have pointed to many more starting with Mitch McConnell and working my way down. The GOP has become the party of NO! as exemplified by the near-unanimous GOP vote against extending unemployment compensation in states with the highest unemployment. In previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, UC extensions during recessions have been passed easily with bi-partisan votes. Today, I just heard that there are only 3 Republican votes in favor of the watered down financial reform bill.

                I haven't heard anybody saying don't judge the New Black Panther party just by the incident in Philadelphia. The NBP is a hate group, plain and simple. The argument, as I understand it, is over the Justice Department's decision not to pursue the case further after obtaining a conviction of one of the NBP pickets at the polling station. The NBP is a very small radical splinter group which has little influence in the black community.

                1. KFlippin profile image60
                  KFlippinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  The financial reform bill is just like the other tomes of unknowns bills.  No doubt financial reform is needed, but voting yet again on something that is absolutely blind except for key pieces?  A bill that seeks to control industry and grow government, least of all regulate? 

                  And let us all wait breathless for news of who was bribed to get a Pelosi Passing of this bill. And if this administration was interested in bi-partisan support, someone really ought to tell Pelosi and . . .others.  Fact is, they only want support for exactly what they want, how they want it, and they sure don't want anyone to know everything they've shoved in health care, this so-called finreg, or anything else, including the so-called stimulus.

                  And the leader of the Black Panther Party would beg to differ with you, he has made it quite clear that they are well respected and connected thoughout our government and industry and have thousands of members, it appears to be a practiced line of the 'brother'.  He himself is on tape attributing the dropping of the charges against his 'brothers' to having a black AG, or racism - if they had no influence, no mainstream ties, the charges would never have been dropped, or lessened, or become the object of humor and ridicule and hahaha.

                  So, please don't try to convince me this is a small hate group that doesn't have fingers across this country. I will hope that is true, but I will not ignore the group as insignificant.  I might have, if not for the NAACP's latest racist antics that quite reinforce this current climate of ...fear? Yes, fear, it all leaves me fearful, I'm sure that will make some happy.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Here's an objective report on the Philadelphia voting intimidation incident and on the NBPP:

                    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the- … corn0.html


                    Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance ... This case is a one-off. There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general—his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters—but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics.

      2. lovemychris profile image67
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        No they should be boycotted because they are political opportunists who care nothing for the people who pay them! They are NOT earning their pay, so fire them.
        They don't get paid to make sure they get re-elected, yet that's all they are interested in doing.

        "Vote for me, and I'll set you free! ....Rap on brother rap on."
        Sounds about right.

        Get them out. Get people in who want to work for a living.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah! Screw the Constitution! Who cares if there isn't any valid argument that the Federal government is allowed to provide Health Care to the populace!!! Those derned republicans think that "following the constitution" (albeit, in only this one case) is a good idea?!?! HA!

      ...

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph deeds and many others on this forum are arguing that passing legislation is the equivalent to curing social ills.

      This is inaccurate.

      If legislation = societal bliss, then the third Reich woulda been golden

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image75
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        More great logic

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ... everyone's getting mad at the Republicans for "stopping legislation"...

          I fail to see how my argument is wrong.

  8. SparklingJewel profile image77
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    Since when did any finger pointing from any side at the other, get us anywhere...except into continued immaturity and no sound movement in a helpful direction

    until each individual grows up and and can speak without immature ranting, the country is doomed to fail for lack of adults to make sound decisions

    there's a lot to be done...on all sides of the issues

  9. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    'there's a lot to be done...on all sides of the issues'
    first is to throw all the bums out and start over, from dog  catcher on up.

  10. Flightkeeper profile image73
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    I think we should get rid of the public employee unions.

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      One comment say "we do not care for any party who do not care for little people". Hey are we so stupid do we need any party to tell us how to run business? Why we expect somebody else should run our life?
      We are not little people. We are example to the world how to do business. We do not need any government to do anything for us or involve any way.
      But we do not have any chance, since we left God from our life. We will reap what we seed.

  11. Reality Bytes profile image84
    Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago

    Block all parties.  Let us get a tyrannical dictator who can serve for life, handing the monarchy down to future generations.  It is much easier to hope for change when the government is able to quell all dissent.  Then we can really make things happen....

    WooooHoooooo

  12. AnnCee profile image71
    AnnCeeposted 7 years ago

    BOYCOTT ALL REPUBLICANS

    LOL   That's about all you got in the Democrat arsenal. 

    Democrat candidates can't say to voters, "Do you like what's happening under President Obama?  If so vote for me so we can continue with his programs for change."

    60% of Americans DON'T LIKE WHAT OBAMA IS TRYING TO DO. 

    Every candidate he stumps for loses.


    So good luck with boycotting all Republicans. 

    Democrats are super busy with their noses in the sewer trying to find stuff with which to smirch Republican candidates.  With the help of the Democrat Propaganda Arm formerly known as the mainstream media.   

    Nothing good to run on so they blame Bush and look for dirt.  Pathetic really.

    1. lovemychris profile image67
      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      WHAT???
      That is not even CONNECTED to reality.

    2. profile image0
      woolman60posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      AnnCee what is up with your hate?

      http://hubpages.com/hub/CLEARING-MY-MIND

      1. AnnCee profile image71
        AnnCeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Woolman60, what are you talking about?

        What Democrat candidate is running on Obama's success?

        Do you approve of the Barack Obama administration and their accomplishments?

        I don't.   Why do you call that hate?   Because you are a Democrat and you've got nothing else to say?  Just as my post opined.

        1. Dave Barnett profile image56
          Dave Barnettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          To boycott the GOP all you have to do is vote.

        2. profile image0
          woolman60posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          AnnCee, let me say this to you, I don’t care what party you are for, and you need to learn how to talk to other's without your hiding behind your sarcasm. The Republicans have run the country long enough, every nation hates us for what the Republican party stood for under the Republican dictatorship of Bush, you and your radical thoughts of how a President should act and what he should stand for is way out of reach for anyone to understand, I find your hate and your anti- American stance towards our President to be offensive and very hostile. Are you that mad that the President has not failed enough because of your Republican anti – American stance that you find a need to denounce anyone and everyone who believe in our President and our country?

  13. Shadesbreath profile image82
    Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

    Yes, do a blind, unthinking boycott.  Just make a big, emotional, moronic table wipe. Then, all the angelic purity of the Democrats can pour like sweet honey balm upon all the problems of the world because only Democrats have any good ideas.

    America without Republicans:http://kokomoconcessions.com/images/Fairies%20and%20Unicorn%20Symbol.jpg
    I can't WAIT!!!

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      big_smile  Love it!

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Shades, thank you for the picture and a good laugh. lol lol

  14. MikeNV profile image82
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The only thing that needs to be Boycotted is IGNORANCE.

    Vote for the people who best represent your EDUCATED point of view.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not a first, but certainly rare ... I agree with Mike!  smile

    2. lovemychris profile image67
      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Problem is...now Beck has a college!
      People will call that educated. "Look, I went to Glenn Beck College! I'm really really smart! And I know Democrats are communist terrorists who want to destroy America...I learned it in class!"

      The web of propaganda grows ever bigger.
      Did ya hear Russssshhhhhhh?
      God that guy is a buffoon! "If Obama wasn't black, he'd be a dog-catcher in Chicago". Now I tried to relate this to what I used to say about Junior Bush: "If it wasn't for his daddy, he would be a cheerleader for the Dallas Cowboys."
      Same thing??

  15. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    I've never heard of an elected government bending over backwards to do what the opposition (who lost) wants.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, the current crop of Dems is doing way too much of that, watering down bills hoping to get a few Republican votes.  I really wish they would stop that.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Neither have I, did someone say that they should? But they should do what the people want and they are not.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Democrats leans to socialistic communism. Republicans,many are infected.

        1. lovemychris profile image67
          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Repubs lean towards corporate fascism??

  16. profile image0
    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    How do you know when a politician is lying?

    His lips are moving.


    Boycott all politicians.

    Viva La Revolución!!!

  17. raisingme profile image82
    raisingmeposted 7 years ago

    Why are they called "political parties"?  I thought parties were supposed to be fun!

  18. Misha profile image78
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Another extremely positive thread with extremely viable solution lol

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What would that be, throw peaches instead of tomatoes? lol

      1. Misha profile image78
        Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Rotten peaches? That might be an idea wink

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Or boots like they did to Bush.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmaBhHJbbes

          it's sooo funny! lolololol

          1. Misha profile image78
            Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That was funny, I remember it lol

            Dying to see what they will throw at Obama eventually lol

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              um... the book! lol lol lol

              1. Misha profile image78
                Mishaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Bible or Quran? wink

                1. profile image0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Who cares! lol

  19. Reality Bytes profile image84
    Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago

    If Chuck Norris decides to be the President.  There would be no reason for elections.

    Chuck Norris would just be the President
    http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj75/b0ng0inc/ChuckNorris1.jpg

  20. Onusonus profile image81
    Onusonusposted 7 years ago

    I say we boycott alternative lifestyle babies.
    http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/7/2/19/f_AnneGeddesBm_164b6b1.jpg

  21. AEvans profile image79
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    Personally I think we should vote both Democrats and Republicans out and start all over with fresh new people in our government. Maybe they could run the Country better then everyone who has been sitting around gathering dust. smile

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How about voting for the candidates that do not have the big money behind them ? We keep voting for people on both sides of the aisle who have the money behind them and keep getting the same results , only now the results seem to be getting worse !

      1. AEvans profile image79
        AEvansposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I will second that thought Tony it is a grand idea. smile

        Let us vote for you! big_smile

        1. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I'm down AE ! I gotta feelin many here might not have our enthusiasm. But hell at least I am honest !

          1. AEvans profile image79
            AEvansposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Me too! big_smile

  22. Diane Inside profile image81
    Diane Insideposted 7 years ago

    Maybe if you started voting by your morals instead of what the party can do for you it would be better.

    1. AnnCee profile image71
      AnnCeeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, Diane, it is what Republicans usually do in my experience.  We don't look to the government to support us from cradle to grave.  That is what Democrats vote for.   They are willing to be slaves to big government.

      1. Dave Barnett profile image56
        Dave Barnettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        But the GOP turns a blind eye to people who really need help. Both parties are doing all of us a disservice by continuing to poor billions into a military that must rely on expensive outsourcing in order to conduct a war.

        1. Sab Oh profile image55
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Manufactured dependency is not "help," and saying "don't spend so much on the military" is as cheap and easy as griping about the police until some criminal scum has a gun to your head and you decide you need them.

          1. Dave Barnett profile image56
            Dave Barnettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Fact is, we are still spending at the same level as we were at the height of the cold war, and if we weren't so much in the habit of telling others how to live and take care of our own maybe we wouldn't have had to get sucked into a war that has produced nothing but grief for the innocent

            1. eovery profile image61
              eoveryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Historically, the dems have gotten us into the wars.

          2. donotfear profile image88
            donotfearposted 7 years agoin reply to this


            Here, here!

  23. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Boycott all Democrats!

    Or FIRE them.

    Whichever gets them to stop trashing the Constitution and our Country.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The activist Republican Supreme Court members are the ones who are trashing the Constitution. They gutted the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision and ruled last year that giant corporations are people.

      1. eovery profile image61
        eoveryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        What about unions? since you are a union expert.  Unions can do it, but corporations can't?   Something is wrong with that picture.  Union can be represented but Corporations can't.  I think this equalizes the playing field and the dems don't like it.

        1. Strophios profile image57
          Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          See, there is a significant difference between corporations and unions. When you join a corporation, you join under the expectation that they will pay you money, and you will give them your labor in exchange, thereby producing something for the corporation (eventually, profit). The corporation then going out and spending money, which you have allowed it to earn, on speech with which you do not agree is essentially the corporation misrepresenting you. Particularly given that there is no expectation of the corporation being a political actor.

          When you join a union, on the other hand, part of the stated purpose of the union is to advocate for you and for the other workers who are also members. That that advocacy should extend into the political realm seems obvious and sensical.

          The essential difference is this: a union is a group of people joined together for the purpose of advocacy, for the purpose of speech while a corporation is a group of people working together for profit.

          1. eovery profile image61
            eoveryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And the corporations pay a majority of the taxes.   Corporation has a lto of share holders. ..etc.  etc. 

            The supreme court agrees with this.  Wake up.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              By all means WAKE UP!: The corporations try to buy the Congress and too often succeed.

              Lawmakers take contributions every day from corporate executives and lobbyists hoping for their votes. The question of whether that represents business as usual in Washington or an ethics breach is at the heart of a far-reaching Congressional ethics investigation that is stirring concerns throughout Washington and Wall Street.


              The Office of Congressional Ethics has sent corporate donors and fund-raising hosts more than three dozen requests for documents involving eight members who solicited and took large contributions from financial institutions even as they were debating the landmark regulatory bill, according to lawyers involved in the inquiry.

              The requests are focusing on a series of fund-raisers last December, in the days immediately before the House’s initial adoption of the sweeping overhaul, which could win final approval this week. Some of the fund-raising events took place the same days as crucial votes.

              For example, on Dec. 10, one of the lawmakers under investigation, Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, left the Capitol during the House debate to attend a fund-raising event for him hosted by a lobbyist at her nearby Capitol Hill town house that featured financial firms, along with other donors. After collecting thousands of dollars in checks, Mr. Crowley returned to the floor of the House just in time to vote against a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher restrictions on Wall Street.

              Read the entire article here. It'll make you sick.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/po … f=politics

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                this isn't the corporations' fault. Yes, many corporations use government to do their bidding.

                But it's the same thing as any child crying in the candy aisle - the parents give in. You dont' blame the child, you blame the parents.

                Government needs to quit over stepping it's boundaries - those boundaries are outlined in the Constitution.

    2. Dave Barnett profile image56
      Dave Barnettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Kill the Dems! Kill the GOP! Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out! We'll start a new party, we'll call it the Permanent Party. I want to pass out the JACKBOOTS!

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        ???

        What the heck?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Leviticus

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Oh Ron.  You might want to stop referring to concepts (and especially stop twisting concepts) in a Book about the God you don't even believe in.

  24. AnnCee profile image71
    AnnCeeposted 7 years ago

    Balderdash!   That's a Democrat mantra with no basis in fact. 

    Republicans give more time and money to charity than Democrats.  Google it.

    Republican policies strengthen the economy and strengthen opportunities for people to achieve a good life on their own.

    Democrat and progressive policies weaken the nation and weaken individuals.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I like your terms.
      "Balderdash."
      It's like hogwash.  My favorite word.  smile

    2. Strophios profile image57
      Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       

      Says the person who cites sources once in a blue moon and is more likely to offer unfounded platitudes than to argue in a meaningful way... see below.



      Yes... and? The relative charitableness of the members of each party has no bearing on the relative merits of their policies. You are giving us a beautiful example of the most overused ad hominem fallacy. Attacking the people proves nothing about their positions.



      You say that, but you seem awfully shy of providing any evidence. Please explain to me how denying unemployment benefits strengthens the economy. Talk to most any economist and they will tell you it does the opposite. And that is but one of numerous foolish Republican policies I could have chosen.



      Again, you say these things... and then provide no evidence whatsoever, as if we should just take your statements on faith. That is the opposite of the way to argue.

      Specifically on this point: how exactly does ensuring health care for all "weaken the nation and weaken individuals"? Or regulating food and drug manufacturers? Or giving out unemployment compensation? Or any of a host of things which are progressive policies implemented in the past hundred years?

  25. eovery profile image61
    eoveryposted 7 years ago

    We had this for the last 18 months and see the trouble we are in.  This would be the stupid idea in the world.

    If you want socialism, good luck.  But you are an idiot for it.

    1. Sab Oh profile image55
      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      We can exchange strongly held views without the insults, really.

  26. AnnCee profile image71
    AnnCeeposted 7 years ago

    Sorry Strophios, I don't have the time to educate you.  Read some news everyday from a wide variety of sources and you should begin to see a broader picture.

    I like to take a look at http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/World+News/North+America/USA   in order to read news sources from all over the world.

    American media is split down the middle, both right and left obfuscate and exaggerate.

    1. Strophios profile image57
      Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's funny: I ask you to provide sources and examples, so you tell me to just read the news. If things are clear and obvious enough that all I have to do is "read some news everyday" then it should be no trouble at all for you to provide me with some specific examples, instead of evading the question.

      Incidentally, that's not how sources work anyways. When I ask that you cite sources (or similar), you don't just give me a source, you give a citation, i.e. you give me a source and tell me where it is that the source supports your point. So, just giving me a news aggregator and saying "find it yourself," only proves that you have no examples.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Have you tried Google? Seems to work pretty well, give it a try.

        1. Strophios profile image57
          Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Telling me to find it myself is only proof that you yourself have no support for your ideas. See, if I say "Liberals are always right. Don't believe me? Then google it!" that does nothing to prove my claim. Now, on the other had, if I claim "The US won 36 gold medals in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Don't believe me? Look here: http://en.beijing2008.cn/# (the official site of the Beijing Olympic Games, with the medal standings listed on the first page, about halfway down)." you're more or less obligated to believe me. Either that or abdicate reality.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I am not obligated to believe you or even look at the source provided. If I want to know if something said is true I Google it.

            You could do the same.

            1. Strophios profile image57
              Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I could, or I could hold myself and you to higher standards of argument. You know, the kind which real people engage in, where the point is to discover the truth, not just throw unsupported statements back and forth.

              You are indeed obligated, at least if you want to participate in reasonable, sensical debate and argument. You are of course free to question the legitimacy of my source, but that is an entirely different thing from ignoring it and/or failing to provide your own sources.

              And by the by, it is the person making the claim who must provide the evidence, not the other way around. I mean, I suppose that you could argue by different standards. You could go right ahead and be a sophist, attempting to argue around the truth rather than by way of it. It is a common thing to do these days (see political punditry).

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Hold yourself to a higher standard and don't insult people and maybe they would care to engage you in debate.

                or not

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  That's true.....

                  You can Google it smile

                2. Strophios profile image57
                  Strophiosposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I leveled no insult. An insult would be "You're an idiot,"or  "you're arguing like a sophist, so you're an idiot." All I did was make an objective statement of fact.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    You were insulting the other day, you apologized for it.

  27. AnnCee profile image71
    AnnCeeposted 7 years ago

    Sorry Strophios, seriously no time.  Jim Hunter is right.  Google works very well.  But I like that UK news site because it updates constantly with breaking news from sources all over the world.   Then you just follow your interests and start reading.  I'm obviously interested in keeping an eye on the Barack Obama thugministration.  Dangerous times.

  28. Ron Montgomery profile image59
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana is a good man and should not be boycotted.

  29. lovemychris profile image67
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    I like Darryl Issa from California.
    At least he sticks to his guns.

    And he made a good tag team with Kucinich when they went after TARP. Wooooo, that was fun to watch!!

  30. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years ago

    http://tizona.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/48v52.jpg

    1. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Too funny, thanks for the laugh. smile

  31. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

    In my personal and considered opinion, both major parties are full of S@#t. Neither one has the best interest of the country or its peoples as a priority. It really appears to be time for the independents to claim not only Washington but every portion of government from local school boards all the way up.

  32. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    How does this strike you Republicans and Tea Partiers?

    Group files to put Tea Party on Michigan ballot

    By Dawson Bell
    Free Press Lansing Bureau
       
    LANSING – An elusive group based outside Saginaw that calls itself the Tea Party submitted 59,400 petition signatures to Michigan election officials this afternoon, the first step in a process that could result in a slate of Tea Party candidates on the state ballot in November.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20100714/N … ch.-ballot

    The GOP in Michigan has been coseying up to the Tea Party but may have "jumped a shark."

  33. lovemychris profile image67
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    What are you afraid of?

    Yay for financial reform!
    Yay for Consumer Protection!!

    FINALLY, the gvt is doing what it's supposed to do!
    Protecting the people from powerful forces of greed. Minnesota Repub wants minimum wage to be $2.13 an hour!!!!


    Thank God for Dems and Obama. God help us if Repubs and/or tea-bags get in!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      where does the constitution state that the role of the US government is to protect people from "greed"?

      That's nonsense.  The constitution was actually a power-grab by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists (Hamilton was known for wanting George Washington to be the Monarch of the new government) to solidify power for the founding fathers (basically). But the language in the 10th amendment makes CLEAR that the constitution puts ONLY limits on the federal government.

      1. lovemychris profile image67
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Well, the forces of greed have been RUNNING the federal gvt, so there you go!!

        BTW, I would like to hear any rationale for the minimum wage being $2.13 an hour...is this a joke?


        And, if the 14th amendment protects my privacy, why are so many people trying to over-ride it?

  34. Abecedarian profile image81
    Abecedarianposted 7 years ago

    Sorry, but boycotting the Republicans just makes them more the "victim" and they are in no way the victims they try to paint themselves to be.

    I say instead that Democrats and Independents head to the polls in droves on election day and make their votes count.DON'T STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY.

 
working