Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

What do you mean?

Go to popular vote. Get rid of the electoral college. Win or loose based on the majority is a standard I can live with instead of the manipulation being conducted to try to sway the outcome.

you were the one making it partisan

not me

don't worry... it will be corrected eventually when the democrats get control.

same tree.... different monkeys is all

The GOP is currently doing it, I mentioned it, so I'm the one being partisan.

 

[Minor Axis]

Picked up from another forum. Does anyone see the value of loyalty oaths required to graduate from high school? I think it's stupid and it's proposed by... you probably guessed it.

In Arizona, some Republican legislators (you cannot spell crazy without R-AZ) have submitted a bill that would require every student to recite a loyalty oath (<link) in order to receive their HS diploma. Part of the oath reads, "... I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion ...", which does not quite square with the bit about not getting your diploma if you refuse to recite the pledge. And, of course, there is that SHMG bit at the end, just to piss off the nasty atheists.

I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

 

[Accountable]

"... I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion ...", which does not quite square with the bit about not getting your diploma if you refuse to recite the pledge.

:24:.

 

[Minor Axis]

I was listening to Hard Ball with Chris Matthews recently and heard him make a profound comment. He said that in the 50's what the U.S. used to do when we did not like a foreign government in many cases was to subvert it and engineer it's overthrow. Mr. Matthews drew a parallel between then and now and accuses the GOP of not liking our current government and are doing their best to subvert it. Wow...

I think they(GOP) think they are trying to save the government, however when you go to Washington to prevent anything from being done because those are things you don't like, or because you don't want the opposition President to get anything accomplished, even if it is something you normally like, and instead of recognizing all of the parties elected to Congress and dedicating yourself to compromise, the only way a group like this can get anything done, if you don't do the latter (compromise), you are negligent in your duties and should resign.

A friend summarized it this way. I agree with his summary:

Yes, it is shocking that there does seem to be a coalition bent on destroying the Federal Government. But, it really isn't quite like that. It is a coalition of groups with very different agendas but coincident short-term goals. The most irritating (to me) group is the obviously racist faction. They just want to get through this with Obama having the minimum accomplishments possible. Another group is the Political-Authoritarian group of Christians. They want gays back in the closet, but, they really, really want women to go back to being barefoot and pregnant. But, the most sinister group are the wealthy who really know better, but, are selfishly working to destroy Medicare and Social Security so that they can keep buying lots of new toys. The first two groups can only be educated slowly, but, they aren't the real problem, because without the money and brains of the third group, the first two won't go anywhere. The third group of people have convinced themselves that it would be good for the U.S. to go back in history to the Gilded Age. They have been relentless in their pursuit of a complete plutocracy. That is what they think they want, but, if they succeed, the U.S. will turn into a third-world country around them and they won't be happy.

 

[Alien Allen]

Chris Matthews is a loon.

I really used to like him but I think he went over the deep end.

Might be that thrill that went up his leg.

This type of commentary does nothing for the national discourse and is no better than the drivel spewed out by the right.

 

[Accountable]

I was listening to Hard Ball with Chris Matthews recently

So you're the one.

and heard him make a profound comment. He said that in the 50's what the U.S. used to do when we did not like a foreign government in many cases was to subvert it and engineer it's overthrow. Mr. Matthews drew a parallel between then and now and accuses the GOP of not liking our current government and are doing their best to subvert it. Wow...

I think they(GOP) think they are trying to save the government, however when you go to Washington to prevent anything from being done because those are things you don't like, or because you don't want the opposition President to get anything accomplished, even if it is something you normally like, and instead of recognizing all of the parties elected to Congress and dedicating yourself to compromise, the only way a group like this can get anything done, if you don't do the latter (compromise), you are negligent in your duties and should resign.

A friend summarized it this way. I agree with his summary:

I usually marvel at what you consider "profound". The dems and repubs clearly have very similar longterm views - centralize as much political power as possible in Washington, remove as many obstacles as possible for their corporate sponsors (many of which they have in common), and set regulations to block any potential competition from ever getting a foothold. They only disagree on who should control Washington.

Oh, your friend is as much a one-eyed paranoid partisan as you are.

 

[Minor Axis]

Jeb Bush CPAC Speech- Stop being the anti-everything Party...

"All too often we’re associated with being 'anti' everything," he said. "Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs, because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party."

Iraq War 10th Anniversary

The Dick speaks:

In his latest effort to defend the war, Cheney declared to filmmaker R.J. Cutler that the Iraq War was justified because the U.S. eliminated a regime that might have at some future time posed a threat.

This is the party that has cornered the market on responsibility...

 

[Alien Allen]

better to be against something bad than to be for something bad

I want more responsible regulations and all the left can come up with is that means I want to starve the kids and granny and want to pollute the air and waters

and people like Minor just lap it up.

Neither side gives a damn about anything but obtaining and keeping power in their hands.

Same tree just different monkeys

 

[Minor Axis]

better to be against something bad than to be for something bad

I want more responsible regulations and all the left can come up with is that means I want to starve the kids and granny and want to pollute the air and waters

and people like Minor just lap it up.

Neither side gives a damn about anything but obtaining and keeping power in their hands.

Same tree just different monkeys

So is this you defense or excuse for the GOP? Or do you think Jeb is right?

 

[Alien Allen]

So is this you defense or excuse for the GOP? Or do you think Jeb is right?

Neither side gives a damn about anything but obtaining and keeping power in their hands.

Guess you missed that part eh?

It is all window dressing. Matters none what they claim they care about. They only care about protecting their job and turf.

Noticed you ignored the part where the democrats claim the reps want to starve the kids and granny and pollute the air and waters. Must mean you buy into that bullshit I guess.

 

[Minor Axis]

Neither side gives a damn about anything but obtaining and keeping power in their hands.

Guess you missed that part eh?

It is all window dressing. Matters none what they claim they care about. They only care about protecting their job and turf.

Noticed you ignored the part where the democrats claim the reps want to starve the kids and granny and pollute the air and waters. Must mean you buy into that bullshit I guess.

Here's an idea. Let's pray to God for a flood to wash the Earth clean and start from scratch?

 

[Alien Allen]

Here's an idea. Let's pray to God for a flood to wash the Earth clean and start from scratch?

seeing how I am an atheist I doubt praying is an option

I could have a come to Jesus moment though if praying for a flood would wipe out the liberals though

 

[Accountable]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

On Tuesday, Paul endorsed a version of immigration reform that would allow the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants in this country to become legal.

Last week, he outlined an idea that would end government discrimination against gay marriage.

The week before, Paul defied the hawks in his party to lead a 13-hour filibuster in protest of the Obama administration’s secrecy over its drone warfare program — a stance Democrats would have championed if a Republican were president.

And the week before that, he was one of only four Republicans voting to confirm Chuck Hagel as defense secretary.

Taken together, these pleasant surprises suggest that Paul is more complex than his tea-party caricature and more savvy than the libertarian gadfly his father had been. In his speech to CPAC, the younger Paul didn’t even mention the Federal Reserve or the gold standard. He has spoken, instead, of reaching out to minorities, young voters and other Democratic constituencies.

“I’ve never met a new immigrant looking for a free lunch,” he told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, calling on his party to embrace higher levels of immigration. Paul proposed “acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”

 

[The Man]

seeing how I am an atheist I doubt praying is an option

I could have a come to Jesus moment though if praying for a flood would wipe out the liberals though

Poof tsunami arrives on the coast of Calif and Oregon to begin the cleansing.

 

[Minor Axis]

The GOPs Self Refuting Argument on Guns.

In this context, John Boehner’s interview on the topic with Jake Tapper is important, because it highlights an argument you’re going to hear a lot in the days ahead.

First, the comic relief. As Steve Benen notes, Boehner slipped up and accidentally endorsed the policy goal at the heart of the proposal. Asked if background checks should be part of our response to ongoing killings, Boehner replied: ”They should actually do a real background check on everyone.”

Obviously, under current law we don’t “do a real background check on everyone.” That’s the problem the new proposal would fix. But lest you think Boehner suddenly had an outbreak of common sense, his office quickly walked this back and said he supports only current law.

That’s pretty telling. But what is even more interesting is what came next:

“We’ve got plenty of laws on the books. Let’s go and enforce them before we just load up more laws on law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t respect the law.”

The argument that we don’t need expanded background checks because “criminals don’t respect the law,” i.e., they won’t submit themselves to a background check, is a common one among the “gun rights” crowd. But this argument is self-refuting. It is actually an argument for expanding background checks, not against it. Here’s why: The loophole in the background check law — which the new proposal would close — is actually a leading reason why those who are prohibited from having guns are able to continue not “respecting the law.” The loophole in the law is a key reason they are able to get guns while not submitting themselves to background checks under the current system.

The companion question is why have guns been raised to 'golden calf' (an idol to be worshiped) status? Do they really not want background checks? Do they really not expect gun dealers to keep records and inventory of dangerous items? It boggles my mind.

 

[Accountable]

The GOPs Self Refuting Argument on Guns.


The companion question is why have guns been raised to 'golden calf' (an idol to be worshiped) status? Do they really not want background checks? Do they really not expect gun dealers to keep records and inventory of dangerous items? It boggles my mind.

What do you see as the purpose of records and inventory of guns.

 

[Minor Axis]

What do you see as the purpose of records and inventory of guns.

So the government can take your guns, what else? This is one of the reasons why my visits to this forum are becoming more infrequent.

 

[Alien Allen]

The GOPs Self Refuting Argument on Guns.


The companion question is why have guns been raised to 'golden calf' (an idol to be worshiped) status? Do they really not want background checks? Do they really not expect gun dealers to keep records and inventory of dangerous items? It boggles my mind.

do you really think background checks are going to stop criminals and the insane from getting them?

I don't see that as being realistic. Think of it like drugs. Drugs are illegal but a user can find them easy enough via illegal means. What would make guns different from drugs.

Then you have people legally buying guns and somebody in the house gets a hold of them. Nothing in a background check will address that issue.

Minor I will give you an idea to ponder. What if they did mandatory background checks and then all info involved is destroyed immediately?

I suspect if you and other anti gun people were honest you would admit your goal is to disarm society. I am open to you proving otherwise though.

 

[buffalo hunter]

do you really think background checks are going to stop criminals and the insane from getting them?

I don't see that as being realistic. Think of it like drugs. Drugs are illegal but a user can find them easy enough via illegal means. What would make guns different from drugs.

Then you have people legally buying guns and somebody in the house gets a hold of them. Nothing in a background check will address that issue.

Minor I will give you an idea to ponder. What if they did mandatory background checks and then all info involved is destroyed immediately?

I suspect if you and other anti gun people were honest you would admit your goal is to disarm society. I am open to you proving otherwise though.

We allready have background checks, they cant work if the laws are not enforced. What good are more laws, oh yeah, you allready know what their reasoning is.

 

[The Man]

So the government can take your guns, what else? This is one of the reasons why my visits to this forum are becoming more infrequent.

Why would you want the govt to take the guns?