American GOP is an Impediment to Obama Governing.......

[Old Bookaroo]

JunkShopFiddler:

The Founders didn't "allow" for any parties.

Other than the drunken revel they knew as Christmas, of course.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dave44]

PIP isn't nit piking. The founding fathers never set anything up that would be an impediment to good government. Our system was intended to embody compromise. Everybody has a voice. That's not happening right now. And it is the pubs who are the rock in the road.

Where do you start with this? You don't even realize what you are saying anymore do you NF? A compromise is for GOOD government, not trying to compromise how bad it should be made. You realize, that there is one on your side, on this forum occasionally, that vehemently disagrees with you, at least as far as the middle east is concerned, he has stated, over and over, that if you do not allow a minority viewpoint in government, civil war is likely.

Your viewpoint is getting very dangerous, I hope the rest of the 10 % that identify with you and have control of 2/3s of government can shake this weirdness off.

The childish party is not good at compromising because they want their own way, no matter what, Even if they have to run roughshod over the Rebublicans.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

childish because the democrats don't bend over like they did on 9-11? everyone MUST agree with the right wing nuts or be demonized...the more education and facts one brings to the republican table...the more the person is vilified.

yep..that worked for some despots in the past...probably in the future also....but not here, not now.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

childish because the democrats don't bend over like they did on 9-11? everyone MUST agree with the right wing nuts or be demonized...the more education and facts one brings to the republican table...the more the person is vilified.

yep..that worked for some despots in the past...probably in the future also....but not here, not now.

We will NOT go quitely into the night!

 

[Dave44]

Pip,, you want someone to post the clintons, the undertaker and the cast of ghouls saying that Iraq was a grave threat to the US, and had to be stopped. Again? Do you forget that often? Nearly everyone of them was on that bandwagon for the politics and optics,, I don't remember seeing any one of them on their back asking for a belly rub.

Stating something and hoping we will believe it is kinda strange. There are cameras on these loons all the time now, it's easy to find these, google man.

Anywhere there is a camera, you will find a Dem with something to say since 9/11, and it always has something to do with a poll # and the medias bias.

 

[Red James Cash]

Like I always say,better a wingnut than no nuts.

 

[JunkShopFiddler]

JunkShopFiddler:

Have you read Gingrich's "GOPAC" memo about language. I believe it was issued in 1994. He said the Republicans should demonize the Democrats. What possible good did that accomplish? Just drove people farther apart.

There has been a lot in the media recently about President John F. Kennedy. Look at the Kennedy-Nixon debates from 1960. They treated each other with respect. They agreed on the nation's goals. The disagreements were how to get there.

Until Gingrich and his ilk, they didn't accuse each other of being un-American, Communists, socialists, or any of that Tailgunner Joe garbage.

I was happy to see Ole Newt fall flat on his fat face in 2012. He deserved it for what he did to politics in this country.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Kennedy and Nixon might have agreed on a course for America, but the two parties today don't agree on that path for America, JFK and Nix are moot points, Neither was Socialist, in my opinion.

Can you imagine Mr. Obama saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you" ...Man, cue the laugh track. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Newt says the Democrats should be demonized? That's what a demon or devil is...a "deceiver"...Hope and change? Yes We Can? ...Actually, "No we can't" keep our healthcare plan...."No we can't" keep our doctor..."No we can't" get smaller payments. I can go on with the Obama no's, what a hypocrite, calling the GOP the party of no, he ran as the candidate of a "Yes We Can" deception. What a shame for him to accuse the other party of saying no.

And yes they didn't accuse each other of being Communist, or Socialist before, but they sure should have! As far as dividing the country, it should be as divided as necessary to expose those who would take our freedom away!!! How can we expose the evil if we don't divide ourselves from it? America was more divided over Slavery than at any other time. And it was the division itself
that brought the end of slavery. Not making an accusal, but it sounds like you think slavery should have been allowed to continue rather than have the country "divided" We need the division today to bring on the end of oppressive Government!

So if a demon or a devil is a "deceiver" Anyone not scared of the truth knows who the real "demon" is...and has to come to terms with themselves for defending him.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

Iraq was no threat to anyone..and did noting to deserve invasion from the us....no evidence has ever been shown that Iraq had a thing to do with 9-11.
and the one democrat that did stand up to this insane process the republican hate monger created...{karl rove}...is still vilified....

but the facts are so smeared, that people believe the lie...

" it is easier to believe a lie one has heard a thousand times, than a fact none have heard before.."
Richard m nixon

 

[Dave44]

Iraq was no threat to anyone..and did noting to deserve invasion from the us....no evidence has ever been shown that Iraq had a thing to do with 9-11.
and the one democrat that did stand up to this insane process the republican hate monger created...{karl rove}...is still vilified....

but the facts are so smeared, that people believe the lie...

" it is easier to believe a lie one has heard a thousand times, than a fact none have heard before.."
Richard m nixon

So pip.. who is the "one"?

You do realize that Nixon was talking about the lies from the left?

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

I realize many things....one is you are a waste of time.

good day...perhaps you an that lonely republican in New Hampshire are a match made in heaven...you are both so lonely.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

Ah - the Enron Defense. The Bush Administration put out wrong information, people fell for it, and now the defense is "You went along with it."

Enron put out bad financials and when caught said "Hey - everybody said we were a great company!"

Additionally, of course, the George Bush Administrations ran two wars Enron-style - off the books.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[austin]

My only suggestion is that we find the writers who wrote all those lines that made total sense to All In the Family's Archie Bunker and elect them all to Congress. And perhaps one as President.

 

[Dave44]

Maybe we could get enron or madoff to write Obamas speeches! That is a great Idea!!!! They were both believable in their scams too. Wait,, maybe they did write them.

 

[worldtalker]

Iraq was no threat to anyone..and did noting to deserve invasion from the us....no evidence has ever been shown that Iraq had a thing to do with 9-11.
and the one democrat that did stand up to this insane process the republican hate monger created...{karl rove}...is still vilified....

but the facts are so smeared, that people believe the lie...

" it is easier to believe a lie one has heard a thousand times, than a fact none have heard before.."
Richard m nixon

Who was it that said " when you lie,lie big,the bigger the lie the more people will believe it".

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

My only suggestion is that we find the writers who wrote all those lines that made total sense to All In the Family's Archie Bunker and elect them all to Congress. And perhaps one as President.

I asked Batkid to run for Bat-President! Told him, he could save us all!

It seems a shame that there is so much division. One does not build a house, business, or life, with division.
Imho, I feel instead of always thinking win/lose, why don't we see if there are areas where there can be win/win?
I feel, there are way too many in power who romp and stomp, demanding THERE WAY is the only way! Well, by WHOSE standards?
A puffed suit, the preacher, the teacher, whose way is the right way? How can a man raised in a city and secular life, understand the man raised on a farm, working, and toiling all his life? And vice versa.....

There needs to be fairness. A win/win situation. I do not believe our founding fathers expected a nation divided, to stand.

Maybe we should put the GOP on commission, instead of salary.

 

[Chadeaux]

JunkShopFiddler:

The Founders didn't "allow" for any parties.

Other than the drunken revel they knew as Christmas, of course.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Wrong. Parties were already in place at the time of Washington's farewell address:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.


The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.


Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.


It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.


There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Chad:

Did it hurt when you had your sense of humor removed?

Did you think they said "tumor" so you said "Sure!"?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

Wow.

 

[DeepseekerADS]

I'd seen this thread, but looking at other things, I'd not read it before.

So, let me respond to this initial post, the GOP being an impediment to O governing, by saying this:

Oh, thank heavens!!!

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

I wonder if somes' criticism here, is meant to help or hurt the discussion.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual."

First rule of survival: Save yourself first!
We're not in that mode, yet.........

Perhaps this is a flaw, in that man seeks out that "one" who will sustain him, when he should be able to look to himself as his own sustainer, with healthy inter-dependant relations with others, that again, is mutually beneficial. Not, yay I screwed you over, yay for me, boo for you.
Why is it so hard to set ego's aside, to come to a positive outcome?
What is see, is overblown ego's, with outcomes that are only going to benefit the few, and harm the many.
I don't care how O tries to spin, re-spin, rename, and re-sell his delusions!