Schwarzenegger: ‘Extreme Right Wing’ Of Republican Party Has Litmus Test That ‘Doesn’t Allow Compromise’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry_Miah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
No it’s not. I’d accelerate getting out of Afghanistan earlier than is planned and spending less on stuff like war. But at least combat is over in Iraq. Not to forget under the leadership of the current Commander in Chief, Osama Bin Laden was dealt with. The previous Commander was spending all of that while at one point saying he really didn’t think much about the wherabouts of Bin Laden or about him all that much. Yet he was gung ho on prematurely proclaiming “mission accomplished”. Oh what a complete waste of 8 yrs IMO between 2001-2008. It even boggles my mind why people would want to go back to basically the same economic policies that got us into such a mess too.
Click to expand...
Say it brother, say it. Much of our country seems to have gone into collective amnesia about what a huge mess we got into in those eight years. If would be one thing if Romney and the GOP were proposing anything different at all, but they are literally repeating the same mantra from 2001-2008, when they presided over a near collapse of the economy. No acknowledgment at all of the mess they made. Everyone has forgotten that embarrassing “Mission Accomplished” fiasco. And what pains me is that no one seem to care about the millions of Iraqis who are mourning the death of their loved ones (one death = a whole family mourning) because of the unprovoked aggression of USA under the White House leadership. The GOP has no regret, no sorrow, no shame about all that and now they are saber-rattling towards Iran! And shall we mention ‘Brownie, you’re doing a helluva job’ as New Orleans relief effort totally failed?
 
iamrefreshed said:
Hope this helps…😉

Current United States Congressional seats
Political PartyHouse of RepresentativesSenate
**Democratic Party**192 51
**Republican Party**240 47
Independent 0 2
*Vacant *3 0
Click to expand...
Well I think you’ll have to look up the nunbers but, last I read,

the house of representatives consist of 436 seats, the senate has 100.

Currently, the Republicans control the house of representatives, with a large number who belong to the Tea Party Caucus. The Tea Party Caucus is large enough to prevent the House of Representatives from passing a budget, or any other law.

Jim
 
sedonaman said:
No problem.

Democrats, either directly (by party platform) or indirectly (through the ACLU, et al), have actively supported, and through the courts and the educational system, forced societal acceptance of the following (only a partial list, in alphabetical order): Abortion
Abolition of private property
Abolition of tradition
Adultery
Affirmative Action
“Alternative lifestyles”
Anti-Americanism
Anti-democracy
Anti-conservative speech
Anti-school choice
Anti-subsidiarity
Assisted suicide
Death taxes
Defiance of legitimate authority
Distribution of condoms in K-12
Diversity (except viewpoint)
Euthanasia
Female masturbation workshops in universities
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery
Godless Marxism
“Hate” crimes laws
Hate for the Christian religion
Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
Homosexual special rights
Intolerance of the good
Isolationism
K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
K-12 sex education
Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism
Nietzscheism
Obliteration of God from the public square
Parole of vicious criminals
Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Polylogism
Pro-Europeanism
Racial quotas
Radical egalitarianism
Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
Release of known terrorists
Same-sex “marriage”
Sodomy
Speech codes
The individual human will (will to power)
Tolerance of evil
Tolerance Über Alles
UN one-world government
Unlimited government
Unlimited taxation
“Victimless” crimes
Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
Voting rights for felons

All this from a Party that claims it wants to prevent some from “forcing their beliefs on others.” Of course, the Democrats have innocuous sounding terms for those of the above with which the average voter is familiar, and if one were to be against any, he would immediately (if not sooner) be accused of “denying others their ‘civil rights’.” If one were to doubt Democratic Party support for the above, I challenge that person to imagine who would be the ones to fight a proposed law to make just one of the above illegal.

One writer summed it up as the Democratic Party’s “fascination with death and communism is the prime mover of its dementia.”

I never heard it put any better.
Click to expand...
The real Democratic Party bears very little resemblance to the bogeyman described by your list. There are some really good pharmaceutical remedies for the level of paranoia you are exhibiting. Just saying.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
So he’s actual not liberal enough for you? Wow :eek:
Click to expand...
No. He’s even more a centrist than me. I voted for Dennis Kucinich, a Catholic btw, in the 04 primary after John Kerry already had for all intents and purposes the nomination sewn up. I later voted for JK, also a Catholic, in the general that yr. Way back in 80 I voted for Kennedy, also a Catholic, over Carter in the primary but voted for Carter in the general. In 2000 I voted for Bill Bradley over Gore but for Gore in the general after much thought to voting Nader. The list goes on. In 08 I supported Obama over Hillary principally because of her Iraq war vote and Obama’s opposition to that war from the start.
 
iamrefreshed said:
Hope this helps…😉

Current United States Congressional seats
Political PartyHouse of RepresentativesSenate
**Democratic Party**192 51
**Republican Party**240 47
Independent 0 2
*Vacant *3 0
Click to expand...
It doesn’t really because in the Senate so much seems to require 60. And yes yes no one has to say it. We all know for a brief time the Democrats held 60 but the Democratic Party is a huge tent and not everyone always walks in lockstep underneath it with each other.
 
CMatt25 said:
It doesn’t really because in the Senate so much seems to require 60. And yes yes no one has to say it. We all know for a brief time the Democrats held 60 but the Democratic Party is a huge tent and not everyone always walks in lockstep underneath it with each other.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Yes, its a big tent with only one row of seats. IF you don’t dance to the song Nanny Pelosi is fiddling, you are kindly invited to get the hell out.
 
CMatt25 said:
There are centrist Democrats in Congress to the right of the previous House Speaker and for now Minority Leader, who have not been kindly invited to do what you said.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition#New_Democrat_Coalition_members_.28House.29

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition
Click to expand...
From the Blue Dog Coalition 113th Congress:

Opposition to Obamacare and climate change legislation are believed to have contributed to defeat of two conservative Democrats in the United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012 by a more liberal opponents. It was estimated by The New York Times that the number of Blue Dog Democrats will drop to 23 in the 113th Congress as the Democratic electorate takes a more progressive position.

Like I said, you either dance to Nancy’s song or you are told “don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.”
 
CMatt25 said:
There are centrist Democrats in Congress to the right of the previous House Speaker and for now Minority Leader, who have not been kindly invited to do what you said.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition#New_Democrat_Coalition_members_.28House.29

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition
Click to expand...
Blue dogs aren’t too common anymore thanks to Reagan and the rise in liberal (and intolerant*) Democrats.

*Note: I don’t mean that liberal Democrats are all intolerant
 
Jerry_Miah said:
I haven’t called you a single name, and yet you keep accusing me of doing so. Please stop the flame-baiting
Click to expand...
I’m not flame baiting, I’m merely calling you out on your ad hominems and name calling. Let me refresh your memory:
Jerry_Miah said:
Essentially it sounds like you would be most comfortable in a theocracy.
Click to expand...
In other words you called me a theocrat. So, I asked you to answer my post without the name calling. I notice that you didn’t answer my post either. Here is one more chance:

Do you think that if a leftist extremist policy becomes a norm, then it ceases being leftist extremism? You implied that. Please clarify.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
I’m not flame baiting, I’m merely calling you out on your ad hominems and name calling. Let me refresh your memory:

In other words you called me a theocrat. So, I asked you to answer my post without the name calling. I notice that you didn’t answer my post either. Here is one more chance:

Do you think that if a leftist extremist policy becomes a norm, then it ceases being leftist extremism? You implied that. Please clarify.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ishi,
Do you think the whole forum is about you? Do you notice when a poster is here and signed out? Just saying.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
From the Blue Dog Coalition 113th Congress:

Opposition to Obamacare and climate change legislation are believed to have contributed to defeat of two conservative Democrats in the United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012 by a more liberal opponents. It was estimated by The New York Times that the number of Blue Dog Democrats will drop to 23 in the 113th Congress as the Democratic electorate takes a more progressive position.

Like I said, you either dance to Nancy’s song or you are told “don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.”
Click to expand...
First off no clue why you and Swiss Guy only focus on conservative blue dogs when I also gave you a lengthier list of more centrist Democrats. And Leader Pelosi did not cast ballots in all those places where blue dogs were defeated. The American people in those districts decided. Which I guess to you means as you put it in your own words “invited to get the h… out” for not dancing with Nancy. Except I won’t actually use the word you did.
 
Alan55 said:
The real Democratic Party bears very little resemblance to the bogeyman described by your list. There are some really good pharmaceutical remedies for the level of paranoia you are exhibiting. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Can you debunk it?
 
NickVA said:
can we please refrain from outright partisan debate on CAF. Only if it the debate explicitly pertains to the doctrines of the Holy Roman Church should political arguments be held. lets not get into politics
Click to expand...
This is crazy. The whole topic is about politics, unless you can find a theological implication of how the Extreme Right Wing’ Of Republican Party Has Litmus Test That ‘Doesn’t Allow Compromise’. Anyone for finding the latent lesbianism in Moby Dick?
 
Alan55 said:
The real Democratic Party bears very little resemblance to the bogeyman described by your list. There are some really good pharmaceutical remedies for the level of paranoia you are exhibiting. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Through obamacare, I presume?
 
sedonaman said:
Through obamacare, I presume?
Click to expand...
Sure. When asked about for instance whether people with pre existing conditions should be denied health care coverage as they were before healthcare reform, people say absolutely not. And many parents actually like for instance the idea of their children being able to remain on their healthcare coverage longer to ensure their children have adequate health care.

Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do something about health care and pre existing conditions for instance when they were in power. But it wasn’t until Obama that they started to talk about the problems in our heathcare system. Don’t get me wrong the healthcare reform law is not perfect. But at least it was a start. It wasn’t until Republicans began to demaogue it as “Obamacare” with falsehoods about granny death panels and such that polls began to show less support. Before then many polls actually showed people even supported a public option. Which of course is not in the law.

Which brings me to another point. I know folks around here like to say “Obamacare” is not supported by the people. If someone asked me whether I agree with the Affordable Care Act, depending on my mood that day, I might even say no. But that would be because I didn’t think it went far enough. If not single payer I thought we needed at least a public option to bring about more competition and to make healthcare more affordable. So I wouldn’t put much stock in polls that say people oppose it. People might say they oppose it for entirely different reasons than you do. On another day however I might say I support it because it was a start and better than the status quo.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Of course, as soon as you take some “drugs” to get over whatever “mental affliction” you suffer from.
Click to expand...
Now let me get this straight. Abbyssinia responded to a post by Alan referring to Alan as “you” in her post and asked if Alan could debunk something. And then you reply to Abbyssina by saying of course as soon as “you” (Alan in Abbyssinia’s post) takes some drugs to get over the mental affliction suffered from? :confused:
 
CMatt25 said:
… When asked about for instance whether people with pre existing conditions should be denied health care coverage as they were before healthcare reform, people say absolutely not. …
Click to expand...
That’s because people haven’t been made aware that if pre-existing conditions were allowed, no one would buy insurance until he needed it, then cancel after he got well. That’s a no-brainer: auto insurance companies do not cover pre-existing accidents for the same reason.

…
Which brings me to another point. I know folks around here like to say “Obamacare” is not supported by the people. If someone asked me whether I agree with the Affordable Care Act, depending on my mood that day, I might even say no. But that would be because I didn’t think it went far enough. If not single payer I thought we needed at least a public option to bring about more competition and to make healthcare more affordable. So I wouldn’t put much stock in polls that say people oppose it. People might say they oppose it for entirely different reasons than you do. On another day however I might say I support it because it was a start and better than the status quo.
Click to expand...
If you want a single-payer system, I advise you to join the military; they have a single-payer system. Funny thing though; I’ve never known any mad rush to join because it was such a good deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top