Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

Page 1 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,670
Location: Portland, Oregon

02 Dec 2013, 4:11 pm

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/mcconn ... uining-gop


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

02 Dec 2013, 4:33 pm

Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

02 Dec 2013, 5:51 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

02 Dec 2013, 5:52 pm

Actually, the tea party started out as an independent thing, then the gop jumped on that bandwagon and ruined the tea party.
It was more libertarian in it's early days.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

02 Dec 2013, 5:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.



chris5000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,673
Location: united states

02 Dec 2013, 6:17 pm

pete1061 wrote:
Actually, the tea party started out as an independent thing, then the gop jumped on that bandwagon and ruined the tea party.
It was more libertarian in it's early days.

the tea party is the controlled opposition it lets the media say oh that wacky tea party every time someone brings up something thats anti government

its all one party in the government in the end, just look at how they can never agree on anything unless it screws over the general population then they are all for it and pass it in seconds



em_tsuj
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,786

02 Dec 2013, 6:22 pm

I predict that Mitch McConnell will win another term in the Senate. I hate what the Republican Party has become and I hate the role that Mitch McConnell has played in that process. I hate that people in my state keep voting for him to stay in office. I don't understand these people. Don't rich people have enough power in the U.S.? It seems like the Republican Party wants the poor to die or work 3 jobs just to eat. Reminds me of a Dead Kennedy's song.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,696
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 Dec 2013, 6:42 pm

em_tsuj wrote:
I predict that Mitch McConnell will win another term in the Senate. I hate what the Republican Party has become and I hate the role that Mitch McConnell has played in that process. I hate that people in my state keep voting for him to stay in office. I don't understand these people. Don't rich people have enough power in the U.S.? It seems like the Republican Party wants the poor to die or work 3 jobs just to eat. Reminds me of a Dead Kennedy's song.


How wrong can you be? They want each poor person to hold down four or five jobs. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,696
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 Dec 2013, 6:43 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.


And yet today, the Republicans are increasingly becoming a southern party. What would you have in it's place?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,670
Location: Portland, Oregon

02 Dec 2013, 7:51 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.


And yet today, the Republicans are increasingly becoming a southern party. What would you have in it's place?


It seems to me that whenever a Democrat has been elected President, the GOP throws hissy fit after hissy fit because the GOP believes the White House to be their "property" alone and when a Democrat is elected President, the GOP believes the White House to be stolen from them.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

03 Dec 2013, 3:53 am

chris5000 wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
Actually, the tea party started out as an independent thing, then the gop jumped on that bandwagon and ruined the tea party.
It was more libertarian in it's early days.

the tea party is the controlled opposition it lets the media say oh that wacky tea party every time someone brings up something thats anti government

its all one party in the government in the end, just look at how they can never agree on anything unless it screws over the general population then they are all for it and pass it in seconds


You hit the nail on the head there.

I just remember a few years ago, a group of libertarians, I think in flordia, got together and wanted to protest taxes, they called themselves the "tea party". Well, almost out of the gate, within a couple of weeks, some republican politicians jumped out in front of that movement and steered it off course. As you said, they we're controlling the opposition. If some sort of a grass roots movement starts that might have a point and have an effect, almost right away an agent of the one red/blue party will come along and make them either look like "wackos" or get them marching along with the mainstream political agenda.

The complete BS going on in our world is soooo deep that it's mindblowing.

And yet most people will just brush you off as some kind of "conspiracy theroy" kook.
No theory folks, the world in in a completely f'kd state of affairs. There are very powerful people doing REALLY evil stuff, like true, blood sacrifice evil. I've done my research, I know. I'm not gonna debate it with people in hardcore denial. It's a subject that one has to go learn for themselves. If you don't want to believe me, then go back to your dancing with the stars and NFL, casting your empty vote in the delusional fantasy that "as soon as my guy gets into office everything will be better".


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 10:25 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.


And yet today, the Republicans are increasingly becoming a southern party. What would you have in it's place?


The battle that is currently taking shape is between those who wish to conserve the historic American nation and its traditions versus those post-Americans who want to remake America into something else. The latter are represented very effectively by the Democrats, whereas Republicans represent the American nation only reluctantly at best, and usually not at all. Therefore, I would replace the GOP with a generic American party of some kind that puts the interests and needs of American first in their own country, and leaves social issues up to the states and local communities to decide. This party would concentrate bringing jobs and wealth back by closing the borders to all immigration; stopping these shabby free trade deals that are impoverishing countless numbers of Americans while enriching enemies like China; and putting PC into the same closet that liberalism has shoved Christianity into.

With friends like the GOP, Americans don't need any enemies.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 10:28 am

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.


And yet today, the Republicans are increasingly becoming a southern party. What would you have in it's place?


It seems to me that whenever a Democrat has been elected President, the GOP throws hissy fit after hissy fit because the GOP believes the White House to be their "property" alone and when a Democrat is elected President, the GOP believes the White House to be stolen from them.


Actually, Democrats do the same thing. Republicans called it Bush Derangement Syndrome. And the hell of it is that there excepting his wars, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Obama, at least not concerning the things that really matter.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,696
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Dec 2013, 11:29 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.


Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.

Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.

ruveyn


Yes, I'm fully aware of what you say, though I would add that the GOP was originally more an anti-Southern than an anti-slavery party. The GOP represented the up-and-coming corporate world while the South was a pre-modern society; the two were simply incompatible.

My point is that it's a shame the GOP didn't go out along with slavery. Both were evil.


And yet today, the Republicans are increasingly becoming a southern party. What would you have in it's place?


The battle that is currently taking shape is between those who wish to conserve the historic American nation and its traditions versus those post-Americans who want to remake America into something else. The latter are represented very effectively by the Democrats, whereas Republicans represent the American nation only reluctantly at best, and usually not at all. Therefore, I would replace the GOP with a generic American party of some kind that puts the interests and needs of American first in their own country, and leaves social issues up to the states and local communities to decide. This party would concentrate bringing jobs and wealth back by closing the borders to all immigration; stopping these shabby free trade deals that are impoverishing countless numbers of Americans while enriching enemies like China; and putting PC into the same closet that liberalism has shoved Christianity into.

With friends like the GOP, Americans don't need any enemies.


The thing is, though, America is always in a state of flux - that's what keeps us from growing stale and dying. Of course were not the same country we had been at the beginning - if we were, we'd hardly be the beacon of liberty and opportunity the rest of the world has looked to for inspiration.
And as far as immigration is concerned, none of us would be here without it. All of us - either us or our forefathers had come from somewhere else to be Americans, contributing something to the larger national body, thus infusing life.
In regard to a "generic American party" replacing the Republicans - the only problem with that is, Republican leaders and activists (if left an out group) would infiltrate the new party with intentions of taking it over. Think only about what had happened to the tea party.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 11:41 am

The thing is, though, America is always in a state of flux - that's what keeps us from growing stale and dying. Of course were not the same country we had been at the beginning - if we were, we'd hardly be the beacon of liberty and opportunity the rest of the world has looked to for inspiration.
And as far as immigration is concerned, none of us would be here without it. All of us - either us or our forefathers had come from somewhere else to be Americans, contributing something to the larger national body, thus infusing life.
In regard to a "generic American party" replacing the Republicans - the only problem with that is, Republican leaders and activists (if left an out group) would infiltrate the new party with intentions of taking it over. Think only about what had happened to the tea party.

Ah, the liberal fetish with change for its own sake. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And America wasn't broke. In fact, we created a country that was the envy of immigrants from all over the world.

Is "change" making American better? What I see happening is that every year it becomes harder for young people to find jobs that pay enough to support themselves and start families. And everybody else is working a lot harder for a lot less. Crime is only kept in check by some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. And every year we trust each other less.

I will take "stale and dying" any day over the liberal utopia that is emerging.

As far as immigrants go, I'm not an immigrant, nor are you. The immigrants came to the country the Americans created because we did such a good job. It is also the case that this country is a republic, meaning it belongs to its citizens. As such, we have the same right to exclude the unwanted from our country as we have to exclude them from our homes--and for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all.

In practical terms though, right now, the government is admitting a hundred thousand legal immigrants every month, and at a time when there aren't jobs enough for Americans. So, most of these immigrants will either beat Americans out of jobs or become a burden to taxpayers when they go on the welfare rolls. I say Americans should come first in their own country.

I do agree that until the liberalism is exorcised out of this country, and morality put in its place, that there will be problems. Under liberalism, we are three hundred million individuals working at cross purposes; we need to be one nation instead.