GOP could care less about jobs.

[Liberty]

No, the Republicans AREN'T just as guilty for this mess. That's a pinhead meme. The "MESS" is the fault, in total, of the DEMOCRATS! Republicans are guilty of moderating their conservative viewpoints, in order to "get things done" in Washington, with a bunch of outright Communist Socialists.

That's incorrect.

The Republicans have voted for big government for as long as they've been around.

The republicans want a big police state.

They want to mandate that you live a life that they see fit to be lived.

Regardless of any rights.

There's never enough prisons in a republican legislators mind. (Democrats as well)

And this is a big reason we are in the mess we're in.

If they would just do what they said they were going to do, life would be much better for people than the crap we live with today.

 

[Liberty]

YES! I NAMED TWO INSTANCES ALREADY, CAN'T YOU READ?

Let me explain to the others what is going on here... You've read some jackass know-it-all pinhead blog, where some genius pinhead has discovered that this current House hasn't passed anything specifically addressing jobs creation. But in order for this bit of idiocy to be relevant, you must suspend reality. It would be the same as me demanding you to tell me when the 2010 Congress has passed health care reform? They haven't, they have no need to... they passed health care reform in 2009! Just after they passed an $837 billion bill to create millions of shovel ready jobs! Now that the stimulus has FAILED to do what Obama PROMISED it would do, in creating millions of shovel ready jobs.... Now that we've lost another 2.5 million jobs.... you have the audacity to try and put some blame on Republicans who took over the House in 2010.

Why do you feed the troll?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's incorrect.

The Republicans have voted for big government for as long as they've been around.

The republicans want a big police state.

They want to mandate that you live a life that they see fit to be lived.

Regardless of any rights.

There's never enough prisons in a republican legislators mind. (Democrats as well)

And this is a big reason we are in the mess we're in.

If they would just do what they said they were going to do, life would be much better for people than the crap we live with today.

None of what you said is true, it is liberal propaganda you've chosen to adopt, because you are too retarded to think for yourself. It's a wonder you haven't become a full-fledged liberal, or are you? I think maybe you just pretend to be a libertarian to deflect criticism, and deep down, you are a socialist at heart. In any event, if you are determined to make Republicans your enemy, then you might as well join the Communist Democrat movement, same difference.

 

[Rune]

That's incorrect.

The Republicans have voted for big government for as long as they've been around.

The republicans want a big police state.

They want to mandate that you live a life that they see fit to be lived.

Regardless of any rights.

There's never enough prisons in a republican legislators mind. (Democrats as well)

And this is a big reason we are in the mess we're in.

If they would just do what they said they were going to do, life would be much better for people than the crap we live with today.

Thanks. Possibly the first logical post you've ever made.

 

[Rune]

None of what you said is true, it is liberal propaganda you've chosen to adopt, because you are too retarded to think for yourself. It's a wonder you haven't become a full-fledged liberal, or are you? I think maybe you just pretend to be a libertarian to deflect criticism, and deep down, you are a socialist at heart. In any event, if you are determined to make Republicans your enemy, then you might as well join the Communist Democrat movement, same difference.

If you look up ostrich in the dictionary, there is a picture of Dixie, with his head under the sand.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thanks. Possibly the first logical post you've ever made.

Liberty, this endorsement alone should tell you how far off the hinge you are.

 

[Rune]

Liberty, this endorsement alone should tell you how far off the hinge you are.

Look into your heart Dixie.

Can you honestly tell me you believe all of our problems are caused by dems/libs and all actions by Repubs/cons are lifeward and for the greater good?

How old are you, 5 ?

The extremists in both parties are responsible for our misery.

Both paries have too many members who represent their coporate masters, not their true employers, those who elected them.

You paint yourself as patently niave, nay, ignorant at best.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Look into your heart Dixie.

Can you honestly tell me you believe all of our problems are caused by dems/libs and all actions by Repubs/cons are lifeward and for the greater good?

How old are you, 5 ?

The extremists in both parties are responsible for our misery.

Both paries have too many members who represent their coporate masters, not their true employers, those who elected them.

You paint yourself as patently niave, nay, ignorant at best.

I don't do the "both parties are bad" thing, because that is the "go-to" sanctuary for liberals who are losing the debate. Whenever you are over a barrel and can't possibly stand by the lunacy put forth by your own hacks, you run to the safety of "all politicians are bad" or "both parties are at fault!" That's chicken shitism to me, I accept that some politicians are bad, some politicians are extreme, some politicians are crooked, and some politicians are wrong. This is why it's important to know who you are voting for. We have a process, we elect people to represent us in a democratic style of government, that's how it is here... hopefully, how it will always be. The "both parties are bad" philosophy, logically ends us up at anarchy, because if "both parties are bad" is a true statement, then neither party is fit to lead, therefore, we are better off in anarchy. So, no, I don't believe that both parties are bad, or that either party is inherently bad.

Now, let's talk about "extremists" ...Right-wing radical extremists make up about 2% (or less) of the population. They generally don't participate in the electoral process, they mostly live in cabins up in Montana where they spend most of their time cleaning their guns and practicing militia maneuvers. What YOU want to CALL "extremists" are average conservative minded people, mainstream conservatives, Michelle Bachmann supporters.... those are dubbed "extremists" by you, although you can't explain what views they hold which are "extreme." The left-wing radical extremists are activists, they have taken over the Democrat party, and comprise the majority of its base. The remainder of people are "moderates" ....people who can't decide if they are liberal or conservative. Only ONE party has a problem with extremist elements, and it ain't the GOP.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

What YOU want to CALL "extremists" are average conservative minded people, mainstream conservatives, Michelle Bachmann supporters.... those are dubbed "extremists" by you, although you can't explain what views they hold which are "extreme."

Did Bach-to-Mom stand with John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor to hold America hostage in the debt ceiling debacle? Extortion sounds extremist to me.


What bill has been passed by the GOP-controlled House that will create jobs?


Can you answer the questions?

 

[Rune]

I don't do the "both parties are bad" thing, because that is the "go-to" sanctuary for liberals who are losing the debate. Whenever you are over a barrel and can't possibly stand by the lunacy put forth by your own hacks, you run to the safety of "all politicians are bad" or "both parties are at fault!" That's chicken shitism to me, I accept that some politicians are bad, some politicians are extreme, some politicians are crooked, and some politicians are wrong. This is why it's important to know who you are voting for. We have a process, we elect people to represent us in a democratic style of government, that's how it is here... hopefully, how it will always be. The "both parties are bad" philosophy, logically ends us up at anarchy, because if "both parties are bad" is a true statement, then neither party is fit to lead, therefore, we are better off in anarchy. So, no, I don't believe that both parties are bad, or that either party is inherently bad.

Now, let's talk about "extremists" ...Right-wing radical extremists make up about 2% (or less) of the population. They generally don't participate in the electoral process, they mostly live in cabins up in Montana where they spend most of their time cleaning their guns and practicing militia maneuvers. What YOU want to CALL "extremists" are average conservative minded people, mainstream conservatives, Michelle Bachmann supporters.... those are dubbed "extremists" by you, although you can't explain what views they hold which are "extreme." The left-wing radical extremists are activists, they have taken over the Democrat party, and comprise the majority of its base. The remainder of people are "moderates" ....people who can't decide if they are liberal or conservative. Only ONE party has a problem with extremist elements, and it ain't the GOP.

Can you honestly tell me you believe all of our problems are caused by dems/libs and all actions by Repubs/cons are lifeward and for the greater good?

It is a simple question, yes on no will suffice.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Can you honestly tell me you believe all of our problems are caused by dems/libs and all actions by Repubs/cons are lifeward and for the greater good? It is a simple question, yes on no will suffice.

Why'd you ask the 'maginary multimillionaire to look into his heart? He hasn't got one.

 

[Rune]

I thought I would take a different approach.

Stupid I know, since he can't even answer a yes/no question, but I took a shot.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

'Maginary Multimillionaire mocked mercilessly

What YOU want to CALL "extremists" are average conservative minded people, mainstream conservatives, Michelle Bachmann supporters.... those are dubbed "extremists" by you, although you can't explain what views they hold which are "extreme."

Oh, really?


Since the Bach-to-Mom is no longer the frontrunner and is thereby irrelevant, let's concentrate on the new GOP golden boy.


Some of these positions are commonplace in today's Republican Party.


The candidate who holds all of them at once faces a serious uphill battle against even a weakened President Obama.


Here are 10 of the most extreme positions Rick Perry has taken, and why they might hurt his chances in the general election, even if they help him in the Republican primary:



10. He called Social Security anti-American.

Perry blasted Social Security in his 2010 book, "Fed Up," saying it was created "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government" and was a "violent" assault on American values. He also compared the program to "an illegal Ponzi scheme," in which there won't be enough money later on to support the workers who are paying into the system now.




He vacillates between rhetoric that implies he wants to dismantle Social Security and rhetoric that implies he wants to reform and fix it, and it has never been clear exactly what he would do as president.



While it is undeniable that Social Security is in bad shape financially and many people support reforming it, the program itself is very popular.



If voters believe Perry would cut Social Security or reform it in undesirable ways, they will be less likely to vote for him. Politico noted that this will probably be a key factor in Florida, which has a large elderly population and whose 29 electoral votes could decide the 2012 election.





http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

9. He opposed raising the debt ceiling.


Republican politicians demanded huge spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, but most understood that it did ultimately need to be raised. Perry, however -- like fellow presidential candidate Michele Bachmann -- said flat-out while the debate was raging that he did not believe it was necessary to raise the ceiling to avoid economic damage.


"There's still going to be revenues flowing in, so I think this threat that somehow or another the world is going to come to an end and the threat of, 'We're not going to be able to pay our bills,' is a bit of a stretch," he said. "Most Americans know this: we've spent too much money. We've gotten our house in bad shape, and we need to stop spending."


Like Bachmann, Perry was also criticized for glossing over the fact that cutting spending was a separate issue from paying for expenses already incurred.



http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

8. He doesn't believe in evolution or climate change.


He told a child at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month that evolution was "a theory that's out there. It's got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution."


And in July, before he announced his candidacy, he said there were "clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place." He did not specify who those intellectuals were or what gaps he saw in the theory of evolution.


At the same campaign stop in New Hampshire, he dismissed the idea of climate change caused by human activity.


"I think we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change," he said. "I don't think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question." Again, he did not give any examples of the scientists he referred to.


Neither evolution nor climate change has as much public support as one might think -- a 2010 Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans thought the threat of global warming had been exaggerated -- but even so, outright denials like Perry's are very risky for someone who wants to be president.



http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

7. He has suggested repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments.


Perry supports several changes to the Constitution, some of which -- like an amendment banning same-sex marriage -- are fairly common among conservatives.


But others are extreme from any angle. He said in his book that he wanted to repeal the 16th Amendment, which permits a federal income tax, calling it "a milestone on the road to serfdom."


Tax cuts are standard Republican fare, but it is unusual to hear a front-running candidate for a major office advocate eliminating the income tax entirely.


He also opposes the 17th Amendment, which provides for the popular election of senators. (Before it was ratified, senators were elected by the state legislatures, as per Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.)


In a 2010 interview with Andrew Romano of The Daily Beast, Perry claimed that direct election transferred power from the states to the federal government. "The states were historically more in control when they decided who those senators were going to be," he said. "So that's the historic concept of checks and balances, when you had the concept of the federal government and the states. The 17th Amendment is when the states started getting out of balance with the federal government, is my belief."


Never mind that "checks and balances" refers to the division of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches, not to the division of power between the federal and state governments, which is properly referred to as federalism.


In any case, the logic behind Perry's argument is difficult to understand -- what real power does the federal government gain if individuals in each state elect their senators rather than the state legislatures electing them? -- and it is such a radical position, even among conservatives, that it is likely to alienate many voters.




http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

6. He wants to set judicial term limits and let Congress override Supreme Court decisions.


Another constitutional amendment Perry has suggested would set term limits for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.


"We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he wrote in his book. "One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."


Perry is far from alone in arguing that federal judges are unaccountable to the American people or that they overstep their bounds by "legislating from the bench."


However, the purpose of lifetime tenure for judges was to ensure that they would not become overly partisan or ideological, which they would be more likely to do if they were subject to reappointment or dismissal.


Given this, term limits are unlikely to play well with voters, either Republican or Democratic.


Even more controversially, Perry suggested allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.


To his credit, he did acknowledge that this could result in "increased politicization of judicial decisions," but he concluded that it was worth it because it would "stop the court from unilaterally deciding policy."


This seems like a real political nonstarter, even and perhaps especially among Perry's fellow Republicans, who have long excoriated "activist judges" for politically charged decisions.




http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

5. He is the most anti-abortion governor in Texas history.


Perry believes abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother's life is in danger.


This is a very common position among conservatives, but Perry stands out in terms of the sheer number of anti-abortion laws he has passed as governor.


He supported bills to establish a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and to require minors to get parental permission.


Other bills required doctors to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure could increase their risk of breast cancer, or to perform a sonogram and describe the fetus to the woman.


He supported the unsuccessful congressional effort to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, even for its non-abortion health services, and he signed the Susan B. Anthony List pledge to appoint only anti-abortion judges and cabinet members.


A voter who supports abortion rights would probably be more inclined to look past a candidate's opposition to abortion and vote for him or her anyway if there weren't such a paper trail, so to speak.


The Texas Tribune recently interviewed Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, and wrote, "What worries NARAL's Miller about Perry is his determination. Miller said that ideologically, there's little difference between the position of Bush and Perry on abortion -- but that Perry's tone feels much more vehement."


Pro-choice voters will fear that, with Rick Perry as president, Roe v. Wade would be threatened in a way it has not been under any other president, even those who opposed abortion -- and this fear would not be unfounded.


After all, Perry said in January, "We can't afford to give up the good fight until the day Roe v. Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation's history books."




http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

4. He supports nullification and once suggested that Texas secede from the Union.


The doctrine of nullification, in which a state claims the right to reject and refuse to enforce a federal law, was discredited a long time ago -- in 1832, specifically, when South Carolina declared the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional.


Congress responded by authorizing President Andrew Jackson to deploy the military, and after a new tariff was negotiated, South Carolina abandoned its nullification attempt in March 1833.


But in June, more than 170 years after the Nullification Crisis, the Texas legislature passed a bill to let "any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas and sold in this state avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported -- and Perry signed it into law.


With this bill, the state is outright refusing to enforce a federal law.


Defending states' rights under the 10th Amendment is one thing, but using a rejected, pre-Civil War tactic is not going to get Perry many votes.


In 2009, he also implied that Texas would consider seceding if the Obama administration kept pursuing policies he found objectionable. "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it," he said of the United States, "but if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."


Many commentators and voters have noted how incongruous it seems for Perry to be running for president of a nation from which he suggested, even in passing, that his state might secede.



http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

3. He questions the patriotism of top government officials.


"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," Perry said of the possibility that Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, would order the purchase of trillions of dollars of bonds in order to boost the economy.


"Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous in my opinion."


Of the Federal Reserve as an institution, he said a full audit "would go a long way toward either finding out whether or not there is some activities that are improper or that they've been handling themselves quite well. But until they do that, I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States."


Even Karl Rove, Republican strategist extraordinaire, called Perry's remarks "unpresidential."


Perry also appeared to question President Obama's patriotism in a remark he made to Danny Yadron of The Wall Street Journal. Asked whether a previous comment meant that he thought Obama didn't love the country, Perry said, "I don't know, you need to ask him."


On another occasion, he implied that members of the military did not respect Obama as their commander-in-chief and criticized Obama for never serving in the military.


"If you polled the military, the active duty and veterans, and said, 'Would you rather have a president of the United States that never served a day in the military or someone who is a veteran?' they're going to say, I would venture, that they would like to have a veteran," he said. "The president had the opportunity to serve his country. I'm sure at some time he made the decision that isn't what he wanted to do."


If he wants to win the election, Perry would do better to attack Obama's policies than to attack his patriotism.


We saw how well focusing on Obama's birth certificate worked for Donald Trump.






http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/208...-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm