The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: twyacht on November 18, 2010, 08:24:56 PM
-
"W" doesn't seem all that stupid now does he?,,,,
November 18, 2010
The party of evil -- and stupid?
Mark J. Fitzgibbons
First, House Democrats re-elected Nancy Pelosi to be their minority leader after historic-level losses. It's like promoting Custer had he survived Little Big Horn.
I'm sure there's a strategy in there somewhere.
Now, the far-left is pushing President Obama to go into unconstitutional overdrive abusing Article II executive power through use of executive orders and regulations to create policy that is the constitutional prerogative of Congress.
Did anyone tell the far left about this Tea Party thing, which is creating an unprecedented, renewed concentration on the limits of constitutional authority?
Coming after the left was relentless in claiming that President George W. Bush abused Article II executive power, the Obama administration's earlier aggrandizement of power, such as creating Government Motors, and more recently, the TSA's new invasive airport screening angering everyone -- and which even the ACLU opposes -- we can only conclude that the Democratic Party has a political death wish.
The old line is that Democrats are the party of evil, and Republicans the party of stupid. Democrats appear to be poised to overtake Republicans as the party of stupid.
How's that Hope & Change Working? Reminder this is just a smidget/truncated version of the Anointed One's usurping policies, that will make Jimmy Carter look like,...well,....just a simple peanut farmer when its all said and done.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/the_party_of_evil_and_stupid.html
-
If you're looking for an argument, look elsewhere TW. My only quibble would be that the GOP was the party of evil and the Dems were the party of stupid. As the old Will Rodgers quote goes "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat". Your example bears this out. The Dems will do evil by following the GOP example and expanding executive power. But thats not new either. They did it under Clinton. Paul Begala put it best, or worst when he said "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool huh"?
No, its really not. I don't care which party you belong to, for good or ill, Congress is the first branch. I distrust executive orders.
FQ13
-
It's simple, Pelosi's continued leadership proves that the Socialist money still runs the Dem party, and they will continue to push their anti American agenda.
This is good because other wise the dumbazz voters MIGHT THINK THE Leopard had changed it's spots by 2012, this way they will know it was just another face lift on a scary ugly old bat.
-
Pelosi's reelection as Party Minority leader isn't much of a shocker and is easy to explain.
After the Mid Term those Dems who were more Moderate in their leanings, or considered as Freshmen were mostly the ones who lost their seats.
The Dems left in place are firmly entrenced in Liberal strongholds i.e. the Barney Frank's and Nancy Pelosi's, those who retained their seats are the elite of the Liberal base.
So of course they are going to reelect one of the most Liberal Speakers of our times...to do anything else would have meant saying that Pelosi was a mistake from the beginning.
Plus, when things continue to go wrong for the DNC and this administration....They will toss her under the bus and use her as their scapegoat.
It's Politics as usual.
-
Pelosi's reelection as Party Minority leader isn't much of a shocker and is easy to explain.
After the Mid Term those Dems who were more Moderate in their leanings, or considered as Freshmen were mostly the ones who lost their seats.
The Dems left in place are firmly entrenced in Liberal strongholds i.e. the Barney Frank's and Nancy Pelosi's, those who retained their seats are the elite of the Liberal base.
So of course they are going to reelect one of the most Liberal Speakers of our times...to do anything else would have meant saying that Pelosi was a mistake from the beginning.
Plus, when things continue to go wrong for the DNC and this administration....They will toss her under the bus and use her as their scapegoat.
It's Politics as usual.
Well put. I couldn't agree more. Yet I think its bad news for the country. The Dems lost the Blue Dogs and the GOP the "RINOS". So we get more liberal Dems and a more conservative GOP. They both consider the other the enemy and will never work toghther. Yet stastically, most Americans place themselves as slightly conservative moderates. Who represents them? When the Dems are controlled by Pelosi and the big government libs, and the GOP by Boehner and the Religious Right, none of whom represent most voters, where is the average voter to go? I see more dissafection and distrust as the result. A little bit of this healthy, it keeps th pols honest. Too much though, and it disredits the whole process. This is not healthy.
FQ13.
-
Well put. I couldn't agree more. Yet I think its bad news for the country. The Dems lost the Blue Dogs and the GOP the "RINOS". So we get more liberal Dems and a more conservative GOP. They both consider the other the enemy and will never work toghther. Yet stastically, most Americans place themselves as slightly conservative moderates. Who represents them? When the Dems are controlled by Pelosi and the big government libs, and the GOP by Boehner and the Religious Right, none of whom represent most voters, where is the average voter to go? I see more dissafection and distrust as the result. A little bit of this healthy, it keeps th pols honest. Too much though, and it disredits the whole process. This is not healthy.
FQ13.
Just a thought FQ, you constantly bash on the religious right. However you become very hypocritical when you scream for a return to the constitution. This nation was founded by the religious right, and I believe that it has been the decline of religion in the public arena that has led to the corrosion of our society. Once upon a time congress would open with prayer, they would look to the Bible for their guidance in doing the right thing. Unfortunately, because of the progressive socialist movement in this country, freedom OF religion, has become freedom FROM religion. You rail against people infringing on your rights, but if you read the founding documents, they were very clear that those rights are endowed upon you by your CREATOR. They were very particular in the way they wrote that so that no man could take those rights from you. Regardless of his title. Too many people think that the constitution gives us those rights, when all it does is explain the rights given to us by God.
Having said that, I don't consider myself a religious person, but I'm not an Athiest either. I don't believe to need to show up at church every week to prove you're a good and decent person. But having a belief in a higher power seems to me to be a basic human instinct.
Not trying to pick on you, just making an observation.
-
JC you'll find me in Church most Sundays. My only problem with the religious right, and I think most of the Framers would agree, is that they seem to try legislate on Monday what they couldn't convince people of on Sunday. Religion is a fine thing, but it has no place being forced on people. I'm all for public prayer, as long as no one is forced to say it. Rights did come from God, otherwise they aren't rights just good ideas, and most of the founders were either Christian or Deists. Still doesn't mean we should legislate a particular viewpoint.
Besides, I was using the religious right in the post as an example of the "hard right" that most Americans don't embrace. Cosider it the opposite of "extreme environmentalist" on the left.
All I ws saying is the center got the shaft in November on both sides and I'm not sure that's a healthy thing.
FQ13
-
JC you'll find me in Church most Sundays. My only problem with the religious right, and I think most of the Framers would agree, is that they seem to try legislate on Monay what they couldn't convince people of on Sunday. Religion is a fine thing, but it has no place being forced on people. I'm all for public prayer, as long as no one s forced to say it. Rights did ome from God, otherwise they aren't rjust good ideas, and most of the founders were either Christian or Deists. Stull doesn't mean we should legislate a particular viewpoint.
Besides, I was using the religious right in the post as an exampe of the "hard right" that most Americans don't embrace. Cosider it the opposite of "extreme environmentalist" on the left.
All I ws saying is thec enter got the shaft in November and I'm not sure that's a healthy thing.
FQ13
I see the point you are trying to make, but I question where you see the center as being. With the 2008 elections the policies in this country went so far to the left that ANY movement back to center will look like an extreme swing to the right. You seem to view the Tea Party as being right wing fringe, when in reality, they are trying to accomplish the same goals that you claim to have. Lower taxes, Government accountability, and ending outrageous redistributive social welfare. These are the biggest platforms of the Tea Party.
-
You guys are wrong about the Constitution being drawn up by "the religious right" It was a political document hashed out by pragmatic free thinkers, (Who certainly blew the "render unto Caesar" thing ) Big money capitalists, and latent Royalists.
The purpose of the document was to establish a stable unified administrative process to protect "Life, Liberty, and Property. Thereby making a bankrupt fledgling nation more attractive to the European investment community that actually funded our Industrial revolution.That is why the "Bill of rights was tacked on to the end as amendments instead of being included in the body of the document.
As for public prayer, fine fell free to pray to God all you want, but if you turn around and tell me I can't pray to the Goddess or Ra or who ever, I will kick you in the nuts. ;D
I have no problem with you worshiping as you wish, (except Islam, any religion that says my head should be chopped off can kiss my azz ;D ) but don't tell me I'm wrong because I believe different, that is pure arrogance.
-
I don't think that there IS a Tea Party (singular). I think some on the right are trying to hijack it into being some grassroots auxillary of the GOP. I think the actual movement is a lot more complex and diverse than that. It runs the gamut from Libertarians like me to Christian conservatives like Path and Rastus. While there principles they agree on, like the ones you mentioned, its mostly about what they (we) are against. Chief among those things is an out of touch arrogant group of political elites. The fact that both parties chose insiders to lead them after this last election indicates how out of touch they are. The Tea Party isn't a rubber stamp for the GOP. I think a lot of them would be happy with a populist Blue Dog or an Independent. What they want is less government, less spending and a whole lot less arrogance from our leaders. Pro-choice, pro-life, gay rights, the environment, Afghanistan; all of these are great ways to start a debate at a Tea Party rally. What they agree on is the need for less government and less talking and more listening on the part of DC. Thats just my take on it anyway.
FQ13
-
I have several comments on this so highlighting particular lines would be confusing, I will comment within FQ's text
I don't think that there IS a Tea Party (singular). I think some on the right are trying to hijack it into being some grassroots auxillary of the GOP. (I absolutely agree with this, during the midterms it seemed that every GOP hack in the State suddenly found a Gadsden Flag, most of them had no clue as to it's significance, but they waved them like crazy ) I think the actual movement is a lot more complex and diverse than that. It runs the gamut from Libertarians like me to Christian conservatives like Path and Rastus. (again I agree completely) While there principles they agree on, like the ones you mentioned, its mostly about what they (we) are against. Chief among those things is an out of touch arrogant group of political elites. The fact that both parties chose insiders to lead them after this last election indicates how out of touch they are. The Tea Party isn't a rubber stamp for the GOP. I think a lot of them would be happy with a populist Blue Dog or an Independent. What they want is less government, less spending and a whole lot less arrogance from our leaders. Pro-choice, pro-life, gay rights, the environment, Afghanistan; all of these are great ways to start a debate at a Tea Party rally.( the previous are all subjects for personal debate that have no place in the political scene as they are subjects of person belief and no business of Government. I do not care what you believe, I defy you to find anything in the Constitution that gives the Govt, or even the immediate community any say over what I or my female acquaintances do with or to our minds or bodies ) What they agree on is the need for less government and less talking and more listening on the part of DC. Thats just my take on it anyway.
FQ13
In his post JC mentions the terms "left", "Right", and "center", what everybody overlooks is that these terms also have no place in National politics. They refer to types of government ranging from the Anarchist far left through the totalitarian far right. We already have a type of Government that sits more or less in the middle with the Constitutional Republic, it IS NOT a democracy which is nothing more than mob rule with lawyers, as opposed to Anarchy which is mob rule with out lawyers. Under a Constitutional Republic there are rules established to govern the behavior of both the Government and the Citizens. Every single one of the "rights" that limit Government intrusion into our lives carries with it an inherent but unstated responsibility.
Since we all understand the 2A I will use that as an example, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, the flip side of that is if you go around shooting up people or property you will be punished.
The common herd are to shallow, self centered, or stupid to understand that concept with out having it hammered into their heads and politicians are happy to use that ignorance to increase their own individual power. There are actually only 2 valid politicaL positions on the national level, you either support the Constitution as written and intended as laid out in the Federalist papers, or you are a subversive with the goal of overturning that document and corrupting our original form of Government.
-
There are actually only two valid political positions on the national level; you either support the Constitution as written and intended as laid out in the Federalist papers, or you are a subversive with the goal of overturning that document and corrupting our original form of Government.
Well put Tom....