I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

[bravoactual]

So because a Mormon (not Romney) did something you didn't like in your past your going to persecute Romney for it?

There are loons in every religion. Doesn't mean you discount everyone else.

What I saw was that they were out for themselves and would screw over anyone else when they could. Not just one guy, but a bunch of them.

And frankly, what I've seen of Romney, he's about as oily and sleezy.

Come on, the guy changes his stance on issues depending who he is pandering to, (which again, really repulses me. I say what I think and I don't care who gets offended. But I'm not running for office, for Pete's Sake.) He made his fortune screwing over working Joes so he could buy another mansion. Just a slimy character all around.

Now, say what you want about Obama, but I think underneath, he's a good man. I think he's in waaaaay over his head, and he lacks the skills to make things happen when even his own party runs things, but he's a decent enough bloke.

Romney is the kind of guy if he shook your hand, you'd want to count your fingers afterwards.

As John McCain said during the '08 Cycle, "If you don't like Mitt Romney's opinion on something, don't worry he'll change it. He changes his opinions more often than he changes his socks".

Many Southern Baptists consider the Mormon Church to be a cult. The Southern Baptist Conference has already stated for the record it will not support the RepuBliCon Nominee if that nominee is Romney.

I was born in Arkansas, and my family has lived there since before the War of 1812. There people living in Arkansas who lost family members (myself included) to the Mormon led Massacre at Mountain Meadow.

The RePugs were intent on celebrating their victory in '10, that they failed to look forward to '12.

They allowed themselves to dragged (figuratively and literally) further to the right by The TeaBaggers.

The RePuBliCons had men Buddy Roemer, who could easily have beaten Mr. Obama in 2012, but instead they let people Palin, Bachmann, Ryan, Paul and Cain run the party into a ditch.

If Roemer was going to be the RePug Nominee, I would more than likely vote for him. But you guys want Romnoid, who stands a Perry Chance in hell of winning in November.

Whatever happened to the Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower? What happened to the Party of Barry Goldwater? What happened to the Party of Bill Miller? What happened to the Party of Everett Dirkson? What happened to the Party of Hugh Scott. Men who built up the Party by a willingness to work with Dems, embrace differences and lead by example?

Now you've got a dimwitted Texas Governor (We have had enough of dimwitted Texas Governors), a One-Term Wonder from Massachusetts, a thrice-divorced ethically challenged for Speaker of The House and a woman who thinks it was "Soliders on Iwo Jama" that raised the flag. Being an ex-Marine Bachmann leveled an insult that no self-respecting Marine should have let pass in the first damn place.

This what todays RePuBliCon Party have produced.

I wish I could I felt sorry, but you guys did it to your own damn self.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only true conservatives in the race are Bachmann and Santorum.

They’re the true social conservatives.

Your only issues with them are you don't personally like Bachmann and you feel the voters won't go for Santorum.

I don’t know about Gramps but both are unfit to be president because of their ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution and its case law, in addition to their desire to violate the First Amendment and conjoin church and State.

Whatever happened to the Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower?

It sold its soul to the radical right, social conservatives, and religious fundamentalists in exchange for more votes.

 

[EriktheRed]

The only true conservatives in the race are Bachmann and Santorum. Your only issues with them are you don't personally like Bachmann and you feel the voters won't go for Santorum.

For some Cons, true conservative = fuckin' loon.

 

[candycorn]

The only true conservatives in the race are Bachmann and Santorum. Your only issues with them are you don't personally like Bachmann and you feel the voters won't go for Santorum.

For some Cons, true conservative = fuckin' loon.

I think if you were to poll most Democrats after giving them truth serum and asked them about the state of their party...you'd find a lot of disgust there too (which makes me wonder about party politics in general--why people join parties).

The only thing is that "we" Democrats have our nominee so for better or for worse, our lot is cast with Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. The hard left, if it had it's way, would likely not carry the water for either of the gentlemen.

Grumps represents the hard right--he'll say he doesn't but he does.

While I find the extreme viewpoints from any quarter irresponsible and, on the whole, irrelevant since they are seldom adopted, I'm heartened that he is disgusted because the solutions to all of our problems lay in the middle of the political spectrum.

The hard left or the hard right represent no solutions at all. They represent the worst of the politics of the Auts moving into the teens. Which is why you see such bitter unabashed hatred for those who differ. They are frustrated and their lives will continue to be without purpose.

Good.

 

[bravoactual]

The only true conservatives in the race are Bachmann and Santorum. Your only issues with them are you don't personally like Bachmann and you feel the voters won't go for Santorum.

For some Cons, true conservative = fuckin' loon.

You giving fuck'n loons a bad name.

Your right, of course.

But still your fuckin' loons a bad name.

 

[kaz]

I am disgusted with our party

No Republican you listed is more extreme then Obama, who is a Marxist. Yeah, they all have weaknesses, but why are you so afraid of running a conservative against a liberal? W's grown of government would have been a wet dream for Kerry or Gore who would have had no chance of getting that much socialism passed. If only Republican moderates like Romney can win who don't flip flop like he does, I don't see the point. Let's give up now.

 

[bravoactual]

The only true conservatives in the race are Bachmann and Santorum.

They’re the true social conservatives.

Your only issues with them are you don't personally like Bachmann and you feel the voters won't go for Santorum.

I don’t know about Gramps but both are unfit to be president because of their ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution and its case law, in addition to their desire to violate the First Amendment and conjoin church and State.

Whatever happened to the Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower?

It sold its soul to the radical right, social conservatives, and religious fundamentalists in exchange for more votes.

President Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Forces Europe, saw what AUTOBAHN did for Germany. He knew the United States needed an Inter-State Highway and built it, and in building it created thousands of jobs.

If wasn't for the likes of Everett Dirkson and Hugh Scott, there would never have been a Civil Right Act.

Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller (Father of Progressive Talk Show Host Stephanie Miller) ran a losing campaign in '64 against Lyndon Johnson (Face it, who the Repubican Party ran that year would have lost), they served their party. Goldwater once said, "You do not have to be straight to shoot straight". He also once Republicans "That no member of this house should be kissing Jerry Falwell's Ass. They should be kicking him in the ass".

For all the talk out there of "Not wanting Big Government", this is the Republican Party that would have"Big Government" tell a woman what medical procedure she can undergo.

While talking about "The Right To Life", to many Cons believe in the Capital Punishment. IF you believe in "The Right To Life", then you cannot support the right of the State to take life.

For all those Religious Righties out there, remember the Man you worship as the Son of God, Was Executed By The State. The same MAN you call the Son of God never, repeat never said one word about Homosexuals or Homosexuality. He hated divorce, but not one word on Same Sex Relationships.

IF personal liberty and individual rights are so fuckin' important, then stop demanding that, while claiming you want to stop "Big Government", pushing that same "Big Government" down the throats of the rest us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No Republican you listed is more extreme then Obama, who is a Marxist.

We’ll assume you’re not aware this makes you sound idiotic and ignorant, making your posts meaningless. It’s as idiotic as calling a republican a ‘fascist.’

 

[Dragon]

No Republican you listed is more extreme then Obama, who is a Marxist.

You expect to be taken seriously after posting bullshit like that? Do you have any idea what a Marxist is? Can you present in capsule form what Marx' ideas were? I can:

1) All history is determined by class struggle.
2) In an advanced capitalist society, the multiple social classes of the past are increasingly boiled down to two, an elite bourgeoisie or capitalist class and an oppressed proletariat or working class.
3) As this trend advances, the oppression of the proletariat grows to the point where it revolts and overthrows the capitalist state, imposing a socialist economy and a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A socialist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
4) Under these conditions, society becomes classless.
5) As the only function of government is to keep the peace among the classes, in a classless society it serves no purpose and will "wither away," leaving a stateless, communist society as the successor to socialism. A communist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Now, do you really, seriously want to assert that Barack Obama believes the above? Can you provide a scrap of evidence in support of it?

Would you perhaps like to stop using ridiculous distortions and hyperbole and say that Obama is not as conservative as most Republicans, a statement which, unlike the claim that he is a Marxist, is at least not absurd?

 

[kaz]

No Republican you listed is more extreme then Obama, who is a Marxist.

You expect to be taken seriously after posting bullshit like that? Do you have any idea what a Marxist is? Can you present in capsule form what Marx' ideas were? I can:

1) All history is determined by class struggle.
2) In an advanced capitalist society, the multiple social classes of the past are increasingly boiled down to two, an elite bourgeoisie or capitalist class and an oppressed proletariat or working class.
3) As this trend advances, the oppression of the proletariat grows to the point where it revolts and overthrows the capitalist state, imposing a socialist economy and a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A socialist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
4) Under these conditions, society becomes classless.
5) As the only function of government is to keep the peace among the classes, in a classless society it serves no purpose and will "wither away," leaving a stateless, communist society as the successor to socialism. A communist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Now, do you really, seriously want to assert that Barack Obama believes the above? Can you provide a scrap of evidence in support of it?

Would you perhaps like to stop using ridiculous distortions and hyperbole and say that Obama is not as conservative as most Republicans, a statement which, unlike the claim that he is a Marxist, is at least not absurd?

I'm not defining Communist by everything Marx wrote, I'm defining it by the measuring stick, the Communist manifesto. Which plank of the Communist manifesto does Obama oppose?

 

[Toro]

No Republican you listed is more extreme then Obama, who is a Marxist.

You expect to be taken seriously after posting bullshit like that? Do you have any idea what a Marxist is? Can you present in capsule form what Marx' ideas were? I can:

1) All history is determined by class struggle.
2) In an advanced capitalist society, the multiple social classes of the past are increasingly boiled down to two, an elite bourgeoisie or capitalist class and an oppressed proletariat or working class.
3) As this trend advances, the oppression of the proletariat grows to the point where it revolts and overthrows the capitalist state, imposing a socialist economy and a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A socialist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
4) Under these conditions, society becomes classless.
5) As the only function of government is to keep the peace among the classes, in a classless society it serves no purpose and will "wither away," leaving a stateless, communist society as the successor to socialism. A communist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Now, do you really, seriously want to assert that Barack Obama believes the above? Can you provide a scrap of evidence in support of it?

Would you perhaps like to stop using ridiculous distortions and hyperbole and say that Obama is not as conservative as most Republicans, a statement which, unlike the claim that he is a Marxist, is at least not absurd?

I'm not defining Communist by everything Marx wrote, I'm defining it by the measuring stick, the Communist manifesto. Which plank of the Communist manifesto does Obama oppose?

They're right.

Fail.

 

[kaz]

You expect to be taken seriously after posting bullshit like that? Do you have any idea what a Marxist is? Can you present in capsule form what Marx' ideas were? I can:

1) All history is determined by class struggle.
2) In an advanced capitalist society, the multiple social classes of the past are increasingly boiled down to two, an elite bourgeoisie or capitalist class and an oppressed proletariat or working class.
3) As this trend advances, the oppression of the proletariat grows to the point where it revolts and overthrows the capitalist state, imposing a socialist economy and a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A socialist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
4) Under these conditions, society becomes classless.
5) As the only function of government is to keep the peace among the classes, in a classless society it serves no purpose and will "wither away," leaving a stateless, communist society as the successor to socialism. A communist economy operates by the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Now, do you really, seriously want to assert that Barack Obama believes the above? Can you provide a scrap of evidence in support of it?

Would you perhaps like to stop using ridiculous distortions and hyperbole and say that Obama is not as conservative as most Republicans, a statement which, unlike the claim that he is a Marxist, is at least not absurd?

I'm not defining Communist by everything Marx wrote, I'm defining it by the measuring stick, the Communist manifesto. Which plank of the Communist manifesto does Obama oppose?

They're right.

Fail.

Right word, wrong direction. I gave a simple test, and you failed. Same answer every Democrat gives, it's ridiculous! And no, you can't name one. Wow, using the Communist Manifesto to define a Communist, when I say that out loud even I think I'm nuts...

 

[Toro]

I'm not defining Communist by everything Marx wrote, I'm defining it by the measuring stick, the Communist manifesto. Which plank of the Communist manifesto does Obama oppose?

They're right.

Fail.

Right word, wrong direction. I gave a simple test, and you failed. Same answer every Democrat gives, it's ridiculous! And no, you can't name one. Wow, using the Communist Manifesto to define a Communist, when I say that out loud even I think I'm nuts...

Well, I guess all of Europe is "Communist" too.

Fail.

 

[kaz]

They're right.

Fail.

Right word, wrong direction. I gave a simple test, and you failed. Same answer every Democrat gives, it's ridiculous! And no, you can't name one. Wow, using the Communist Manifesto to define a Communist, when I say that out loud even I think I'm nuts...

Well, I guess all of Europe is "Communist" too.

Fail.

Nice try at deflection, I didn't address Europe either way, I addressed Obama. And you still can't name a plank of the Communist Manifesto that Obama opposes. You do a nice shuffle though..

 

[JoeB131]

They're right.

Fail.

Right word, wrong direction. I gave a simple test, and you failed. Same answer every Democrat gives, it's ridiculous! And no, you can't name one. Wow, using the Communist Manifesto to define a Communist, when I say that out loud even I think I'm nuts...

Well, I guess all of Europe is "Communist" too.

Fail.

Wait a minute. You are praising Europe now?

RINO!

 

[Dragon]

I'm not defining Communist by everything Marx wrote, I'm defining it by the measuring stick, the Communist manifesto. Which plank of the Communist manifesto does Obama oppose?

Well, the Communist Manifesto should not be taken as the "measuring stick," but if you want to use that:

Manifesto of the Communist Party

The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles. . . .

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. . . .

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. . . .

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. . . .

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years. . . .

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. . . .

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. . . .

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. . . .

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. . . .

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. . . .

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. . . .

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

I think it's safe to say that there is an awful lot in that (and the rest of the Manifesto that I have not quoted here) that President Obama would not sign off on, and very few points where he would.

He is no Marxist. Good grief. Even I'm not a Marxist anymore and haven't been one for decades, and I'm a hell of a lot more radical than he is. That suggestion is pure nonsense.

 

[kaz]

He is no Marxist. Good grief. Even I'm not a Marxist anymore and haven't been one for decades, and I'm a hell of a lot more radical than he is. That suggestion is pure nonsense.

The "suggestion is pure nonsense," yet ...still zero planks that he opposes. Seems like a simple hurdle for a non-Marxist, to clearly oppose one plank of the freaking Communist manifesto. Yet the liberals are like my house. I have a wife and two girls. When I ask a question, I get lots of words...none of which actually answer my question. Name one plank he opposes. One. Granted you have to back it up. But please, you can't name and back up one plank of the Communist manifesto our great leader clearly opposes? If he's not a Marxist, the hurdle is a line painted on the floor. Yet liberal after liberal trip over it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Duly noted that neither one of you could address my point. Roemner, Johnson and Huntsman are all ex-governors they are all polling at about 1-2% in the polls. But the liberal media keeps talking about Huntsman like he's about to break out and get to the head of the pack and people are going to start looking at him seriously. Oh. Except he keeps sitting at the back of the back. Of course, the only difference between Huntsman and Romney is that Romney is willing to spend a shitload of the money he made screwing working folks out of jobs and Huntsman is only willing to spend other people's money, of which he's getting very little.

Your points have been competently addressed and dismissed, JoeBigot, and you continue fail. Any media that dismisses libertarianism is the evil MSM to you, and tuff luck to that, old son. Fail. JoeBigot as unbiased critic of Mormonism? The laughter rings throughout the hall.

Didn't even talk about Mormonism here, guy. Just pointed out the obvious. Huntsman is a non-entity that the media keeps making into an entity because he's one of them. He'll be gone by NH, and good riddance, but why was he allowed to take up everyone's time to start with?

Good for you backing down, JoeBigot. Huntsman declared, had enough money to invest in the process, and has not dropped out. He may be running for vice-president.

This is not about MSM at all.

 

[whitehall]

Does anybody really care about Bill Bennett's opinion these days? Bennett's observations about the political climate are about as valuable as any has-been pundit who needs a big sound bite to get back in the game. A couple of years ago it was revealed that Bennett has his own personal problems including being a degenerate gambler who has squandered away a fortune in Vagas. I think his "disgust" is just a ploy to get invited to a few talk shows.

 

[Dragon]

The "suggestion is pure nonsense," yet ...still zero planks that he opposes.

Trouble with reading comprehension? Tell you what. Go back over the quote from the CM that I posted above, and try to find anything in there that Obama supports, and which is not already part of U.S. law.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

EDIT: Never mind, I know you won't, so here are a few examples that you really should have figured out for yourself.

Abolition of private property
Abolition of land ownership and diversion of all rents to public purposes
A heavy progressive, graduated income tax. (I support this. Obama does not.)
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the state.
Nationalization of the media.
Nationalization of means of production.
Establishment of "industrial armies."
Abolition of town and country and distribution of population across the country.

That should do for starters.