Is the Republican Party dying?
Yes
47.1% (65)
47.1% (65)
No
52.9% (73)
52.9% (73)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is the Republican Party "Dying"? Will it "Die" Sometime In The Near Future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Seekster:
Its not without precedent no but there were special situations in those cases that led to those outcomes. I don't think there is a situation right now that would lead to one of the two major parties dying off without another party to quickly rise up and steal its support.

The Republicans didn't have a radical splinter group within them who was forcing the party to an extreme at that point. They do now.

Naheal:

Seekster:
Its not without precedent no but there were special situations in those cases that led to those outcomes. I don't think there is a situation right now that would lead to one of the two major parties dying off without another party to quickly rise up and steal its support.

The Republicans didn't have a radical splinter group within them who was forcing the party to an extreme at that point. They do now.

The influence of the Tea Party is vastly over stated in the media. They were effective in 2010 but in case you havnt noticed, Romney isnt exactly a favorite of the Tea Party and yet he is the defacto nominee.

Seekster:

Naheal:

Seekster:
Its not without precedent no but there were special situations in those cases that led to those outcomes. I don't think there is a situation right now that would lead to one of the two major parties dying off without another party to quickly rise up and steal its support.

The Republicans didn't have a radical splinter group within them who was forcing the party to an extreme at that point. They do now.

The influence of the Tea Party is vastly over stated in the media. They were effective in 2010 but in case you havnt noticed, Romney isnt exactly a favorite of the Tea Party and yet he is the defacto nominee.

If it were overstated in the media, then they wouldn't have the influence over congress that they do.

Naheal:

Seekster:

Naheal:

The Republicans didn't have a radical splinter group within them who was forcing the party to an extreme at that point. They do now.

The influence of the Tea Party is vastly over stated in the media. They were effective in 2010 but in case you havnt noticed, Romney isnt exactly a favorite of the Tea Party and yet he is the defacto nominee.

If it were overstated in the media, then they wouldn't have the influence over congress that they do.

They don't, the Tea Party is pissed as hell that the Republicans finally caved on the Debt Ceiling Battle, they simply dont have the votes needed to defy the Republican establishment and in all liklihood they never will have enough votes.

Gorfias:

arbane:

Gorfias:

So, you are in favor of totalitarianism? I mean, if you are going to polarize and you want to attack me for not wanting to fund government brothels in which women are to service strange men so men don't feel the need to have women in their lives, or maybe a Federal Bureau of spousal satisfaction, where you have to submit your wife to rape because, well, there are people that just think it is a Federal responsiblity to see that women are serviced by credentialed professionals, I guess I have to plead guilty: I don't want that.

man what

You called me an anarchist (In magenta letters!!!!) for having the unmittigated gall to suggest government sometimes spends more than necessary in order to curry favor with certain groups. If you want to throw around such polarized statements we can do that.

I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

Seekster:

Naheal:

Seekster:
Its not without precedent no but there were special situations in those cases that led to those outcomes. I don't think there is a situation right now that would lead to one of the two major parties dying off without another party to quickly rise up and steal its support.

The Republicans didn't have a radical splinter group within them who was forcing the party to an extreme at that point. They do now.

The influence of the Tea Party is vastly over stated in the media. They were effective in 2010 but in case you havnt noticed, Romney isnt exactly a favorite of the Tea Party and yet he is the defacto nominee.

I feel that's really only because this upcoming Presidential election is the first time they've had to check on how the nation as a whole feels about them. I almost feel like Romney is a subtle apology for how obnoxious they've been since 2008. They've got a lot of backpedalling to do if they want to be regarded as anything but a bunch of hateful old men obsessed with keeping gays from getting married and women from getting abortions.

Lilani:

Seekster:

Naheal:

The Republicans didn't have a radical splinter group within them who was forcing the party to an extreme at that point. They do now.

The influence of the Tea Party is vastly over stated in the media. They were effective in 2010 but in case you havnt noticed, Romney isnt exactly a favorite of the Tea Party and yet he is the defacto nominee.

I feel that's really only because this upcoming Presidential election is the first time they've had to check on how the nation as a whole feels about them. I almost feel like Romney is a subtle apology for how obnoxious they've been since 2008. They've got a lot of backpedalling to do if they want to be regarded as anything but a bunch of hateful old men obsessed with keeping gays from getting married and women from getting abortions.

No Romney is just the wakeup call to the Tea Party that they do not represent the majority of Republicans, like liberals in America the Tea Party is simply a vocal minority in the GOP. Romney is not an apology for anything nor should he be, no apology is needed.

arbane:
I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

I was not aware that Boston's Big Dig or the Suffolk County Court House scandals had it all wrong... nope, no fraud waste or abuse anywhere in any local, county, state of federal governmetn in the USA (sarcasm).

Seekster:
No Romney is just the wakeup call to the Tea Party that they do not represent the majority of Republicans, like liberals in America the Tea Party is simply a vocal minority in the GOP. Romney is not an apology for anything nor should he be, no apology is needed.

Even if it's all the tea party's fault, I don't think that's any reason they shouldn't apologize for what has gone on in the last 4 years. Either they need to take a lot of action and prove they are willing to meet in the middle, or they should be prepared to apologize for all the negotiations they have refused to engage in (like the way they held the debt ceiling and the country's AAA rating over the heads of the Democrats to get what they wanted last year).

I don't care who did it. The fact is whomever has been the loudest voice of the GOP in the last four years has convinced me that they are nothing but a bunch of petulant extremists coasting on the votes of fundamental/homophobic Christians and the NRA. And I am going to have to be very impressed over the way they handle things between now and November to be convinced otherwise. I understand that they aren't all like this, but if I'm to believe those non-extremists actually matter they're going to have to get up and make themselves heard.

Lilani:

Seekster:
No Romney is just the wakeup call to the Tea Party that they do not represent the majority of Republicans, like liberals in America the Tea Party is simply a vocal minority in the GOP. Romney is not an apology for anything nor should he be, no apology is needed.

Even if it's all the tea party's fault, I don't think that's any reason they shouldn't apologize for what has gone on in the last 4 years. Either they need to take a lot of action and prove they are willing to meet in the middle, or they should be prepared to apologize for all the negotiations they have refused to engage in (like the way they held the debt ceiling and the country's AAA rating over the heads of the Democrats to get what they wanted last year).

I don't care who did it. The fact is whomever has been the loudest voice of the GOP in the last four years has convinced me that they are nothing but a bunch of petulant extremists coasting on the votes of fundamental/homophobic Christians and the NRA. And I am going to have to be very impressed over the way they handle things between now and November to be convinced otherwise. I understand that they aren't all like this, but if I'm to believe those non-extremists actually matter they're going to have to get up and make themselves heard.

Its politics, no apology is necessary from the Tea Party. If you demand an apology from them you have to demand it from every single set of uninformed malcontents that has ever voiced a political viewpoint.

We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

Well you are wrong about your view about Republicans, they are as diverse as the Democratic party and there are asshats in all groups. For the record though most people who oppose same-sex marriage and abortion do not do so for reasons related to hatred. That is simple a demonization perpetrated for political points.

Gorfias:

arbane:
I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

I was not aware that Boston's Big Dig or the Suffolk County Court House scandals had it all wrong... nope, no fraud waste or abuse anywhere in any local, county, state of federal governmetn in the USA (sarcasm).

What, a whole two incidents to support your claim that governments can't do shit right and need to be all but abolished?

You know, that's a bit akin to going "What? Some dude in New York raped and mutilated a woman!? NUKE. THE. CITY." I mean, that'll root out all the criminal scum plaguing the city, who cares about who else gets taken down with them!

Vegosiux:

Gorfias:

arbane:
I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

I was not aware that Boston's Big Dig or the Suffolk County Court House scandals had it all wrong... nope, no fraud waste or abuse anywhere in any local, county, state of federal governmetn in the USA (sarcasm).

What, a whole two incidents to support your claim that governments can't do shit right and need to be all but abolished?

You know, that's a bit akin to going "What? Some dude in New York raped and mutilated a woman!? NUKE. THE. CITY." I mean, that'll root out all the criminal scum plaguing the city, who cares about who else gets taken down with them!

You are making Arbane's infraction of polarization. I think government has to be kept on a short leash. There are things I would trust my local government to do that I don't want my county government doing, etc. That is not being an "anarchist." One reason is that the more remote the authority, the more likely the instances of waste, fraud, abuse and simple unrepresentativeness. Now it is actually you and Arbane that appear to be arguing that this almost never happens, which, if you knew Massachusetts politics and its $100,000 clocks and $70 chrome waste paper baskets, you'd know is a crazy belief.

Vegosiux:

Gorfias:

arbane:
I was unaware people who want roads, ambulances, fire-fighters, and not starving to death or being poisoned are considered 'special interests' these days. Or are morally equivalent to government mandated rape. (man what)

I was not aware that Boston's Big Dig or the Suffolk County Court House scandals had it all wrong... nope, no fraud waste or abuse anywhere in any local, county, state of federal governmetn in the USA (sarcasm).

What, a whole two incidents to support your claim that governments can't do shit right and need to be all but abolished?

You know, that's a bit akin to going "What? Some dude in New York raped and mutilated a woman!? NUKE. THE. CITY." I mean, that'll root out all the criminal scum plaguing the city, who cares about who else gets taken down with them!

That reminds me of the Madagascar president from Pandemic 2. SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING.

OT: Yeah, no apology is necessary, just some good old fashioned shame and realization that far right conservatives aren't the main people in America.

Gorfias:

You are making Arbane's infraction of polarization. I think government has to be kept on a short leash. There are things I would trust my local government to do that I don't want my county government doing, etc. That is not being an "anarchist." One reason is that the more remote the authority, the more likely the instances of waste, fraud, abuse and simple unrepresentativeness. Now it is actually you and Arbane that appear to be arguing that this almost never happens, which, if you knew Massachusetts politics and its $100,000 clocks and $70 chrome waste paper baskets, you'd know is a crazy belief.

Okay not nuke then, just give every citizen an electronic collar so you can track them.

Waste and corruption are inherent in any system of government to some degree, I'm quite aware of that. Just like crime is present to some degree in any densely populated area. What I argue is that you shouldn't demolish the entire system because it's present.

Seekster:
We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

There are two ways to fix a deficit problem: increase revenue and decrease expenses. Note the and there. We need both. When compromise was initially proposed-you know, raising taxes and cutting spending-the group that you think that has little to no influence outright refused on the grounds of not increasing taxes.

You're quite right. Partisan politics made it worse, but it wasn't a false-equivalency fairy tale that you think it was.

Politics is an indoctrination game, and it has always been a race between two parties to see who can get enough indoctrinates to secure a one party system. Basically turning America into a voluntary dictatorship.

And yes it looks like the Democratic party is going to be the one to do it. Its probably because they are the party of increased social spending, which is basically the same as bribing people, just not illegal. If a presidential candidate was caught outside a polling station telling people he would give them $100 to vote for him, he would be arrested and disqualified. Yet he can step up to the podium and promise the American people lots of "free stuff" to basically buy their vote, and that's OK.

I am reminded of that gas credit John McCain wanted to give every American. I think it was $300. So basically he got up there and told every American citizen, "I'll give you $300 to vote for me." Unfortunately, Obama just outbid him.

This is why I think politicians who promise increased social spending are using sleazy politics.

One can only hope...

The reason is that the liberal ideology is that you get to make decisions for yourself. If you don't like abortion, that's fine, but you don't get to decide for other people. Are you Christian? That's ok, but you don't get to force that on people.

The other reason is the information age, the diversification of America that has occurred since the civil rights movement, and the fact that so many more people are in college. 60 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find a family readily admit to not being Christian. Gays were painted with the same brush as pedophiles. But now with a much more accepting society, we have more people that come out and you can think "Wow, he's gay, and he's not such a bad guy" or "That guy isn't Christian, and he's not bad either",

As for the internet, it's all about sharing of information. The more you know, the more you want to know, and the more open-minded you become.

Finally, college. College has been shown repeatedly to have a very liberalizing effect. And the reason for that is that you have thousands or tens of thousands of people in one small area all from the same background, and people meet other people whom they previously would disagree with and think "Wow, you know what, not everyone who disagrees with me is a bad person".

But those are all facets of the main issue the GOP faces-it's too hard-line: "You agree with me or you're wrong, everyone who disagrees is a [commie, satanist, wantsa destroy Amurika]" , whereas the liberal ideology is that you get to have your own opinion.

The only 'religious freedom' liberals want to take away is the excuse to be an asshole because you are Christian.

Naheal:

Seekster:
We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

There are two ways to fix a deficit problem: increase revenue and decrease expenses. Note the and there. We need both. When compromise was initially proposed-you know, raising taxes and cutting spending-the group that you think that has little to no influence outright refused on the grounds of not increasing taxes.

You're quite right. Partisan politics made it worse, but it wasn't a false-equivalency fairy tale that you think it was.

Indeed we need both but in the past when Republcians and Democrats agreed to both tax increases and spending cuts...only the tax increases happened while the spending cuts were quickly offset. The Republican party had every reason to demand only spending cuts in the recent debt ceiling debate but in the end yes we need both. I advocate cutting spending to the point where it becomes intolerable to cut it further and then from that point you use tax increases to make up the difference. From that point on all new spending programs must be paid for either via tax increases or spending cuts. We need a federal comptroller and at the very least a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP if not an outright balanced budget amendment. If we had practice responsible spending habits we would not be in our current situation and this isnt the fault of any one party. The Republicans are just as much at fault for this as the Democrats are. I don't care who comes up with the solution but we need a solution that will work.

Gorfias:
*Snip*

I'd point out that time inefficiency isn't necessarily a bad thing when it come to a larger government. Larger governments tend to have a harder time doing anything simply because of how hard it is to get anything through such a system. If said government introduces a bit of bad legislation, it gives the people plenty of time to do what they can to stop it.

That's not to say, however, that there isn't going to be an inherent weakness top such a system, but what can you do?

Vegosiux:
Waste and corruption are inherent in any system of government to some degree.... Just like crime is present to some degree in any densely populated area. What I argue is that you shouldn't demolish the entire system because it's present.

No, but you structure it with major constraints to limit it. Man is accused of spousal abuse, allow her a restraining order. Centralized government is wasting tons of money that might not be wasted doing the same job at a local level, assign responsibilities accordingly.

Seekster:
Indeed we need both but in the past when Republcians and Democrats agreed to both tax increases and spending cuts...only the tax increases happened while the spending cuts were quickly offset. The Republican party had every reason to demand only spending cuts in the recent debt ceiling debate but in the end yes we need both. I advocate cutting spending to the point where it becomes intolerable to cut it further and then from that point you use tax increases to make up the difference. From that point on all new spending programs must be paid for either via tax increases or spending cuts. We need a federal comptroller and at the very least a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP if not an outright balanced budget amendment. If we had practice responsible spending habits we would not be in our current situation and this isnt the fault of any one party. The Republicans are just as much at fault for this as the Democrats are. I don't care who comes up with the solution but we need a solution that will work.

Or we could just let the Bush tax cuts expire altogether and stop declaring needless wars. We did a stupid, stupid thing when we cut taxes on our way to two wars. We essentially took a peace-time economic idea and started a war with it. You can't tell me that this was anywhere near a great idea and that keeping these policies in place will work out for the best for our nation.

Naheal:

Seekster:
We would have lost our credit rating anyway because nobody was willing to come up with a solution to our spending problem that would have worked. If you actually read the S&P explanation given that was the main issue, our lack of a solution. The partisan politics only made it worse.

There are two ways to fix a deficit problem: increase revenue and decrease expenses. Note the and there. We need both. When compromise was initially proposed-you know, raising taxes and cutting spending-the group that you think that has little to no influence outright refused on the grounds of not increasing taxes.

You're quite right. Partisan politics made it worse, but it wasn't a false-equivalency fairy tale that you think it was.

The only problem is that the economy is not in the condition to be fixing the deficit and debt. If we raise taxes and cut spending, we will just lengthen the recession even longer. We need to wait until the economy is getting close to the peak, then we can cut spending and raise taxes. As much as I want zero debt, we still have to wait.

Mr.Mattress:
The Modern Whig Party of America

Wow, that's... Totally not an oxymoron.

Seekster:
They don't, the Tea Party is pissed as hell that the Republicans finally caved on the Debt Ceiling Battle, they simply dont have the votes needed to defy the Republican establishment and in all liklihood they never will have enough votes.

You know, I think I've addressed this "caved" issue often enough, so I'm just going to close my eyes, claw at my face, and scream for a little while.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIOAOIUOIUAAAAAAEEEEEEEEIEIIEIIEIEEAAIAEAEIAEIAEIEAEAIEAIEAAEIARARAIGHGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHGHGHGH

...

...There. So much better.

recruit00:
The only problem is that the economy is not in the condition to be fixing the deficit and debt. If we raise taxes and cut spending, we will just lengthen the recession even longer. We need to wait until the economy is getting close to the peak, then we can cut spending and raise taxes. As much as I want zero debt, we still have to wait.

I agree for the most part, but we can't get the support to get the kind of spending that we need nor can we get the taxes that we need from higher echelons of income to properly pay for this spending. Dig too far and there's no getting out.

We keep hearing that we need to "cut spending" and "reduce the size of government" but can't seem to realize that cutting government spending will likely result in directly cutting higher paying jobs. There are problems that can be, and are being, fixed through spending, but patience is quickly running out with our administration.

Naheal:

Gorfias:
*Snip*

I'd point out that time inefficiency isn't necessarily a bad thing when it come to a larger government. Larger governments tend to have a harder time doing anything simply because of how hard it is to get anything through such a system. If said government introduces a bit of bad legislation, it gives the people plenty of time to do what they can to stop it.

That's not to say, however, that there isn't going to be an inherent weakness top such a system, but what can you do?

You don't want a slow, plodding, methodical government deciding whether a spouse being threatened by another spouse is deserving of a protective order. Same for deciding how to fix a road, and more. You assign each level of government those things over which they can best govern, decentralizing as much as possible. You don't have the individual states provide for their own military defense, or control environment regulations: pollution from Vermont can poison New Hampshire, so you have the Fed do those things. A purely intra-state highway? Let the state do it. Etc.

Naheal:

Seekster:
Indeed we need both but in the past when Republcians and Democrats agreed to both tax increases and spending cuts...only the tax increases happened while the spending cuts were quickly offset. The Republican party had every reason to demand only spending cuts in the recent debt ceiling debate but in the end yes we need both. I advocate cutting spending to the point where it becomes intolerable to cut it further and then from that point you use tax increases to make up the difference. From that point on all new spending programs must be paid for either via tax increases or spending cuts. We need a federal comptroller and at the very least a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP if not an outright balanced budget amendment. If we had practice responsible spending habits we would not be in our current situation and this isnt the fault of any one party. The Republicans are just as much at fault for this as the Democrats are. I don't care who comes up with the solution but we need a solution that will work.

Or we could just let the Bush tax cuts expire altogether and stop declaring needless wars. We did a stupid, stupid thing when we cut taxes on our way to two wars. We essentially took a peace-time economic idea and started a war with it. You can't tell me that this was anywhere near a great idea and that keeping these policies in place will work out for the best for our nation.

Ill agree to that but once we do have our financial house in order there is no reasons why temporary tax cuts with built in triggers shouldnt work to boost the economy. Still the first order of business is to stabilize our financial situation, we can debate all we want about what to do after that after that.

Gorfias:
You don't want a slow, plodding, methodical government deciding whether a spouse being threatened by another spouse is deserving of a protective order. Same for deciding how to fix a road, and more. You assign each level of government those things over which they can best govern, decentralizing as much as possible. You don't have the individual states provide for their own military defense, or control environment regulations: pollution from Vermont can poison New Hampshire, so you have the Fed do those things. A purely intra-state highway? Let the state do it. Etc.

The only point I'll argue about would be a purely intra-state highway can easily affect interstate trade, therefore federal oversight would be necessary in this case. The rest are simply problems that are inherent to such a system.

Seekster:
Ill agree to that but once we do have our financial house in order there is no reasons why temporary tax cuts with built in triggers shouldnt work to boost the economy. Still the first order of business is to stabilize our financial situation, we can debate all we want about what to do after that after that.

Tax cuts don't boost the economy nearly as much as you'd think that they would. If profits are all that's taxed, but they're taxed at a high rate, then a business owner has incentive through higher taxes to invest in their company and, thus, help it grow. Lower taxes on profits remove that incentive.

Seekster:
Ill agree to that but once we do have our financial house in order there is no reasons why temporary tax cuts with built in triggers shouldnt work to boost the economy.

...Tax cuts on who? Because if you say anyone other than the lower and middle classes and very small businesses, then you're wrong, and flunking the same economics course that the Bush administration flunked miserably.

Naheal:

Seekster:
Ill agree to that but once we do have our financial house in order there is no reasons why temporary tax cuts with built in triggers shouldnt work to boost the economy. Still the first order of business is to stabilize our financial situation, we can debate all we want about what to do after that after that.

Tax cuts don't boost the economy nearly as much as you'd think that they would. If profits are all that's taxed, but they're taxed at a high rate, then a business owner has incentive through higher taxes to invest in their company and, thus, help it grow. Lower taxes on profits remove that incentive.

Also a big issue is interest rates and saving. Because of how low rates are, people see no need to save and without saving, businesses can't get as many loans. Also, if taxes are lowered, people may not necessarily buy and increase the C component of AD. They may save it or pay off the debts they have. That is why straight up spending causes a larger effect as long as it goes to the right places.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Ill agree to that but once we do have our financial house in order there is no reasons why temporary tax cuts with built in triggers shouldnt work to boost the economy.

...Tax cuts on who? Because if you say anyone other than the lower and middle classes and very small businesses, then you're wrong, and flunking the same economics course that the Bush administration flunked miserably.

Yeah, high income tax breaks don't do anything. Capital gains taxes maybe but not high income tax rates. As the income a person has increases, their Marginal Propensity to Save increases and since they have no debts and have plenty of money, they aren't going to spend; they will just put it in their banks or 401(k)'s.

recruit00:
Also a big issue is interest rates and saving. Because of how low rates are, people see no need to save and without saving, businesses can't get as many loans. Also, if taxes are lowered, people may not necessarily buy and increase the C component of AD. They may save it or pay off the debts they have. That is why straight up spending causes a larger effect as long as it goes to the right places.

Proper spending can directly stimulate an economy if it's done in such a way where government jobs increase. Beyond that, we'll be looking at something a bit more indirect, such as taxing profits at a high right to encourage investing in a company. However, neither one of these concepts are very high on the list for the Republican party at the moment. They seem to be more interested in burning the house to the ground and starting from scratch than growing a garden and pruning what doesn't need to be there.

Lilani:
Even if it's all the tea party's fault, I don't think that's any reason they shouldn't apologize for what has gone on in the last 4 years. Either they need to take a lot of action and prove they are willing to meet in the middle, or they should be prepared to apologize for all the negotiations they have refused to engage in (like the way they held the debt ceiling and the country's AAA rating over the heads of the Democrats to get what they wanted last year).

You are aware that Rand Paul was willing to give the DNC everything it wanted (in terms of raising the debt ceiling) IF they would pass a balanced budget amendment out of the Senate. In other words you give us the chance to get what we want (because there are still several more steps it has to go through) and we will give you exactly what you want. Sounds like a compromise to me.

farson135:

Lilani:
Even if it's all the tea party's fault, I don't think that's any reason they shouldn't apologize for what has gone on in the last 4 years. Either they need to take a lot of action and prove they are willing to meet in the middle, or they should be prepared to apologize for all the negotiations they have refused to engage in (like the way they held the debt ceiling and the country's AAA rating over the heads of the Democrats to get what they wanted last year).

You are aware that Rand Paul was willing to give the DNC everything it wanted (in terms of raising the debt ceiling) IF they would pass a balanced budget amendment out of the Senate. In other words you give us the chance to get what we want (because there are still several more steps it has to go through) and we will give you exactly what you want. Sounds like a compromise to me.

It does sound like a compromise but too bad the amendment is an awful idea.

Gorfias:
Arbane called me an anarchist for suggesting government sometimes spends and does more than it should.

Does the pink sarcasm font mean nothing to you????

I don't think Arbane was seriously calling you an anarchist. Unclench.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked