White Republicans are revolting: They keep winning elections, and keep getting angrier

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: jimmyx
considering that the supreme court is controlled by a conservative majority, 31 state governors are controlled by republicans, 31 state legislative bodies are controlled entirely by republicans, the congress, both senate and the house are controlled by republicans, I would say that the problems in this country are caused by republicans...but....the right wing blames ALL THE PROBLEMS on the one democrat in high office, Obama.....
where is the daily bombardment of cynicism and anger, toward all these republican controlled institutions?????.......I hear crickets chirping...

You did know until 2012 Obama had a super majority in Congress , didnt you ? You did know that some of the Supreme Court Justices are "rumored" to be conservatives but never vote that way , didnt you ?

Epic Fail on the stats...

no it was until 2010 not 2012. And reason Obama lost dems majority is cuz of all his rw betrayals soon as he took office in 2009.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: HorusChrist

and if it didn't pass you would say their non vote caused it to fail.

bottom line is don't bother complaining if you didn't vote. whether a demorcrat or republic politician not voting on a key bill or just a regular American not even voting in elections. Don't complain later! If you don't like the dem or repub selections, vote a third party . . .

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

Do you believe that there is no room for compromise on certain issues? Do you believe any Republican that does is a sell-out and must be ousted because they are traitors to the Party?

You mean like how the Democrats compromised on Obamacare? Passing in the dark of Christmas eve and using legislative maneuvers despite clear opposition? Oh the Republican leadership has compromised alright. They run on one thing and do something completely different when in office. That is the problem and the root of the grassroots anger.

The Democrats DID compromise on Obamacare. That's why it looks like a train wreck now.

There is a reason the states have largely swung Republican as noted above in terms of Governorships and local politics. Middle America is sick of what is going on. They can see the impact of progressive policies more clearly at the state level.

I'd say it has more to do with many voters being poorly informed about the political process; instead opting to let the media tell them how it works instead. After all, since when were anti-American ideals like shutting the government down and not compromising at ALL costs with your political rivals such mainstream ideas?

Compromise depends on the policy and who is doing the compromising and for what reason.

Compromise for the Republicans these days is "My way or the highway! Anyone who disagrees is a Democract, Republicans included."

Compromised with whom? Not one single republican voted for Obamacare. ZILCH. ZERO. You guys could have passed your single payer wet dream if desired and there wasn't anything the right could have done about it, but you didn't. Why? Any compromise was within your own ranks.

So libs are losing the states because voters are poorly informed. No, maybe they are very informed hence choosing not to vote for progressive policies. Our government has been shut down dozens of times. It isn't the end of the world. In fact, it tends to shut down after 5pm and every weekend.

this is the key point. Democrats betrayed us with obamacare which is just romneycare with a new name, but they can't blame repubs because no one repubs voted yes for it. True liberal dems should have voted no, openly announced Obama sold out to pressure him to move left, then get single payer, which is the only viable option (cut out middle man to save money). This happened back in 2010 yet still democrats are too ashamed to admit Obama betrayed us. And rw media helps by acting like Obama is so leftwing when the opposite is the case. Besdies Romney care we bailed out banks and kept the bush wars going on Obama's watch.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I say Bull. "Pushing everyone to the Democrats" is the biggest load of bull you've posted yet. Those that are within the Republican party that feel pushed to the democrats were in fact proof of the RINO label. They were anyways and the right is better off without them.

No, it's because on the left/right spectrum from -1 to +1 you have Democrats clocking in at about a 0.2 and mainstream Republicans at 0.3, the real difference between them isn't in their positions but in authority vs liberty which is an up/down scale. Democrats are bigger on Authority while Republicans are less so. Those are differences but they tend to do with the scope of government rather than a position on the issue (the government should provide X vs the state or a private corporation should provide X). Then you have people at the far edge of the right like Huckabee, Cruz, and so on that are way out there and don't represent traditional Republican values. You say the moderate Republicans are RINO's, it's strange because as someone who is usually a registered Republican I feel the same way about the extremists.

As far as the public goes, poll after poll after poll disagrees with the majority of Obama/Democrat policies-not to mention elections and the 1400 or so seats now in "Republican" control.....

Really? I don't think the public can name even 10 of Obama's policies, and if you've ever read my statements on how I feel about the electorate you would know that I also don't think any of them (myself included in this) are well versed enough on these subjects to have an educated opinion in the first place. At best any of us might be qualified on one or two of them.

You're right that the Democrats have lost a lot of seats though but that's less a reflection on Obama and more a reflection on the fact that people like having a balance in government.

As far as land locked nations goes, Please, a little reality here, if these middle states aren't viable they can join any of these six so-called regions, as you say. They would, at least, have choice! Something that rural citizens apparently feel they are losing now, if not haven't lost already.

I'm sure Iowan's are thrilled at the idea that their state isn't viable and they must join someone else, they have no realistic option to go it alone. That is not a choice, also more than likely since a state like Iowa has no power and isn't viable on their own, they won't have a choice. One of the larger groups will make it for them based on geography.

If you don't think being landlocked is a big deal, here's a map for you
upload.wikimedia.org...

Take a look at the economic situation of most of the countries in green. In 39 out of 42 cases in the world right now the land locked nation is nothing more than a puppet state of another nation.

Tell me being the food source for those coastal powers doesn't allow for agreements and accords to occur, I.E. grain and meat for port access. Water is another one.

The one with port access has all the power in that negotiation. They can go elsewhere from food, they have the ports to ship from anywhere. The one with food can only ship with that access, if they're told no, or to lower their prices they have no alternative but to accept.

Frankly, it IS a compromise. You do your thing, we do ours. Now there's getting along, in my books...

Compromise is "we do the same thing, together". Breaking into smaller regions is not compromise, it's a complete abandonment of the situation which is ridiculous. Not only are there serious military and economic reasons that it wouldn't work out but people in the US aren't even that separated for the most part. There's a fringe group on the right that wants to break off into their own country and then there's everyone else who are fairly close but divided by the media more than by actual fact.

I find it interesting that the areas that would be hurt the most by breaking off are the areas where the secessionists are from.

a reply to: Aazadan

If anyone has wondered at Aazadan's actual motivations, perhaps this clarifies.

I quote: Compromise is "we do the same thing, together".

Hmmm, I call that fascism, not compromise. Telling is it not? It cannot occur without massive enforcement and is the antithesis to the tenets of this nation.

To rebut your spin and dire predictions about a break-up of this Union, here's a slightly different scenario.

Failure to allow access to Port facilities, civilian or military, would result in the shut-down of rail and interstate connections that allow passage for those goods into the remainder of the nation. This results in a massive drop in port usage and coastal employment further worsening the now beyond sustainable levels of unemployment. Coupled with the migration of illegals 'deported' from the 'land-locked' states and traditional welfare recipients that would migrate for a better 'deal', would collapse those coastal state economies.

Conversely, required imports for the land-locked states would be diverted to southern ports in Texas, the Gulf, in general, and the odd state, say a Virginia, that doesn't follow the left agenda/life-style.(They'd love the extra business...)

Militarily, at a guess, 70-80% would align with those land-locked nation states and the right orientated remainder. Failure to reach an accord would result in an enforced corridor to the coast, if and when required. Eg, I-8 into San Diego.

Those land-locked states that are short of oil, not many, could use extant facilities and use the now surplus grain stocks to convert to Bio-Diesel, et al.

So from this light, your land-locked states that you say would be hurt most from this split actually would flourish far better than the left coastal ones. Now add in if one did a poll in those states and asked if the nation was better off without a "California", for example, it was pass with a huge majority....and you know it.

There would be suffering as a result, no question. It would be less than the suffering that will occur if things continue on the path they are going.

So, in short, to hell with your definition of Compromise. It is pure hubris and won't be tolerated. It IS the main reason for the no compromise mentality and it isn't going away....deal with it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Your scenario reflects a lack of any understanding of politics or economics.

There is no need for interstate commerce if we break into separate nations. Everyone except for the middle states has port access. It should be no surprise to you if you've ever looked into the whole fourth amendment free zone and just how many people are covered by that, but the vast majority of the US population lives along the coast. No one needs to care about rail access through their territory, it's completely irrelevant in 90% of cases, only when shipping from somewhere like Oregon to Maine does it matter and in that case there's not only the road through the middle of the US but there's also Canadian routes as well as a relatively direct air route (very little midwest airspace to fly around).

Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming have no direct port access. Those 22 states make up 40.12% of the landmass of the US but they only make up 26.89% of the population. They're effectively outnumbered 3:1. In the event of a split most of the members of the military would back their state or region, that means you're looking at only 27% that would back the land locked areas, not the 80% you claim.

Face it, if the US were to break up all of the inner states would be in trouble, but the midwest would be in a particularly precarious position. That's in addition to the south east which is the biggest welfare area by far and can't support itself, Texas which also can't support itself, and the south west which due to water shortages is becoming more and more uninhabitable by the day. The only two areas of the US that would benefit would be the Washington/Oregon area and New England as those are the areas with the best climate, the best shipping, and the most wealth.

Last, if the midwest actually deported their illegals that make their farms function, they would collapse even faster than they would otherwise. Georgia tried this very thing recently, they passed extremely harsh anti immigration laws and told farmers to use legal farm labor. Putting the costs of doing so aside, even at $15 and $20 per hour the farmers could not get legal citizens to pick crops. It lead to millions of dollars in economic damage in the span of a week, and would have hit a billion if nothing was done. It was eventually solved by using compulsory prison labor (in other words, slave labor) to cover what the illegals were doing. If states like Kansas kicked out the illegals their agriculture industry would cease to exist.

Also, you should look up the definitions of the words compromise and fascism, I'm stunned you think the two equate to each other. To paraphrase the definitions, compromise is when two parties each give something up in order to make an agreeable contract. Fascism is giving the state absolute jurisdiction and authority over property and the means of production. It promotes economic protectionism as well as intervention and transcends left/right boundries. If you want to see examples of modern day Fascists you can look at Hillary Clinton promoting federal control, Rand Paul promoting state control, and Dick Cheney also promoting federal control. Fascists are quite popular with a large segment of the population.

And one last point, if we were to break the nation up, that Constitution you hold so dear would cease to exist as there would no longer be a nation built around it. Do you think any group of politicians in the US today would reinstate it, or go back and fix some of the flaws in it? Personally, I don't think they would even try. Some areas would get a right to be armed, but that's pretty much the only freedom that would remain in tact. Everything else would have restrictions placed on it if it remained at all. That should be enough of a motivator for you to try and find a compromise. Secession isn't going to get you a new nation with the Constitution.

As for the whole lack of compromise thing, I don't have to deal with it. Either we continue to sabotage the government, at which point the nation collapses and some learn from their mistakes, or the Republicans start acting responsibly and things get taken care of. 10% of a party that has 40% of the voting population.... 4% of people are grinding everything to a halt, eventually the other 96% will take care of that. I'm patient.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

Your scenario reflects a lack of any understanding of politics or economics.

There is no need for interstate commerce if we break into separate nations. Everyone except for the middle states has port access. It should be no surprise to you if you've ever looked into the whole fourth amendment free zone and just how many people are covered by that, but the vast majority of the US population lives along the coast. No one needs to care about rail access through their territory, it's completely irrelevant in 90% of cases, only when shipping from somewhere like Oregon to Maine does it matter and in that case there's not only the road through the middle of the US but there's also Canadian routes as well as a relatively direct air route (very little midwest airspace to fly around).

Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming have no direct port access. Those 22 states make up 40.12% of the landmass of the US but they only make up 26.89% of the population. They're effectively outnumbered 3:1. In the event of a split most of the members of the military would back their state or region, that means you're looking at only 27% that would back the land locked areas, not the 80% you claim.

Face it, if the US were to break up all of the inner states would be in trouble, but the midwest would be in a particularly precarious position. That's in addition to the south east which is the biggest welfare area by far and can't support itself, Texas which also can't support itself, and the south west which due to water shortages is becoming more and more uninhabitable by the day. The only two areas of the US that would benefit would be the Washington/Oregon area and New England as those are the areas with the best climate, the best shipping, and the most wealth.

Last, if the midwest actually deported their illegals that make their farms function, they would collapse even faster than they would otherwise. Georgia tried this very thing recently, they passed extremely harsh anti immigration laws and told farmers to use legal farm labor. Putting the costs of doing so aside, even at $15 and $20 per hour the farmers could not get legal citizens to pick crops. It lead to millions of dollars in economic damage in the span of a week, and would have hit a billion if nothing was done. It was eventually solved by using compulsory prison labor (in other words, slave labor) to cover what the illegals were doing. If states like Kansas kicked out the illegals their agriculture industry would cease to exist.

Also, you should look up the definitions of the words compromise and fascism, I'm stunned you think the two equate to each other. To paraphrase the definitions, compromise is when two parties each give something up in order to make an agreeable contract. Fascism is giving the state absolute jurisdiction and authority over property and the means of production. It promotes economic protectionism as well as intervention and transcends left/right boundries. If you want to see examples of modern day Fascists you can look at Hillary Clinton promoting federal control, Rand Paul promoting state control, and Dick Cheney also promoting federal control. Fascists are quite popular with a large segment of the population.

And one last point, if we were to break the nation up, that Constitution you hold so dear would cease to exist as there would no longer be a nation built around it. Do you think any group of politicians in the US today would reinstate it, or go back and fix some of the flaws in it? Personally, I don't think they would even try. Some areas would get a right to be armed, but that's pretty much the only freedom that would remain in tact. Everything else would have restrictions placed on it if it remained at all. That should be enough of a motivator for you to try and find a compromise. Secession isn't going to get you a new nation with the Constitution.

As for the whole lack of compromise thing, I don't have to deal with it. Either we continue to sabotage the government, at which point the nation collapses and some learn from their mistakes, or the Republicans start acting responsibly and things get taken care of. 10% of a party that has 40% of the voting population.... 4% of people are grinding everything to a halt, eventually the other 96% will take care of that. I'm patient.

You should get out into the real world, sonny. I have a better understanding of economics having lived these 65 years and worked in and through these states.

Those ports survive by being traffic points for those internal states. Without which the traffic would diminish to local imports/exports only. Take out the export factor, wheat, other foodstuffs, coal exports, et al, and the manufactured imports, of which the majority is intended for further travel inland and the main purpose of those ports economics is diminished drastically.

"No need for interstate commerce", as you say, kills the port cities, or in your dream world all will be the same? So what do those coastal states survive on? The internal states have the base resources, the food, the oil and a growing manufacturing base that has moved from traditional states into previously under-utilized, lower expensive states such as Alabama, etc.

I assume-and would hope for a logical, negotiated dissolution. economics IS politics and vice versa, politics is economics. Simple when the book readers such as yourself are removed from the equation. In the event of complete collapse economically, then recovery will occur fastest when base resources are abundant....the "fruited plain", sonny.

As far as your numbers for the extreme right, as you marginalize, they are an outright fabrication. Many of the so-called Republicans barely survived primaries in their own ridings, and you know it. The number, at least I admit it's a guess, is closer to 50-50.

Any claims to actual numbers is pure spin. One only has to see the demise of Boehner and the debates for the nomination to see the money support isn't helping the Republican Establishment one iota. The base has moved on from you and your ilk.

What you call patience is, in fact, out of options and idle rhetoric. This IS the last gasp for the republican party. Lose this Presidential election by ramming in a nominee that is Establishment/Corporately backed, and you will lose in that scenario if for no other reason that the base will not bother voting. A third party will be the result.

Patience? End of life listlessness is more accurate.

P.S. I won't bother trying to clear up your confusion on 'compromise' and fascism. Enjoy your delusion. I will let the posters decide whether your comment of "everyone doing the same thing together" smack of compromise or tyranny.. In case you have any doubts about your understanding of compromise and fascism, let me give you a hint, it's called choice. Your scenario can only be achieved by enforcement. That makes it fascism. That's the problem that grows with the size of the federal gov't which you often laud. A cancer, sonny. Nothing more.

a reply to: Aazadan
P.P.S. As far as the Constitution goes, it worked just fine with only 13 members. A reduced size country that uses that Constitution as it's governing document will do just fine.

So let's end the spin of it wouldn't work in a smaller union...

a reply to: HorusChrist

just remember if you don't vote for the right president you voted for the wrong one.

Did you vote in the last election?

Those who didn't vote in 2012, voted for Obama according to your logic.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan
P.P.S. As far as the Constitution goes, it worked just fine with only 13 members. A reduced size country that uses that Constitution as it's governing document will do just fine.

So let's end the spin of it wouldn't work in a smaller union...

I didn't say it wouldn't work, I said it wouldn't be enacted. I'm sure you see the difference between the two. There is not one single state in the US or even a group of them that supports 100% of the Constitution as written.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, that's the first time someone has ever insulted me because I read books and try to not be ignorant on matters. Then again it's thanks to those books (like the dictionary) that I know compromise and fascism have different definitions. Also, all government requires enforcement, that's not fascist. Are speed limits fascist? Clean air standards? Regulation on gasoline additives? Laws against stealing?

The ports losing business doesn't matter, first of all you only lose service to 27% of people, but you also cut traveling distance down by 40% so it works out better for the companies. You would also only lose a fraction of exports, imports would remain as they are.

Land locked nations rarely if ever have any power, and never negotiating power. They almost always fight long bloody wars to get a shipping corridor, and they almost always lose. The UN has stepped in and negotiated several through Africa actually in order to end the wars. In the US there would be no such reason to do that, because the stronger coastal powers would simply annex the inner states.

And yes, it really is a small fraction of Republicans that feel the way you do, primaries don't reflect a party. The people who vote in primaries are deeply entrenched, have stronger beliefs over their parties core platform, and are looking for someone like them. Primaries do not give rise to moderates, and moderates don't vote in primaries. It's basic strategy to move to the fringe for a primary and to the middle for the general.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, that's the first time someone has ever insulted me because I read books and try to not be ignorant on matters. Then again it's thanks to those books (like the dictionary) that I know compromise and fascism have different definitions. Also, all government requires enforcement, that's not fascist. Are speed limits fascist? Clean air standards? Regulation on gasoline additives? Laws against stealing?


No. But "everybody doing the same thing" Is fascism. No matter how much spin you put on it. We aren't ants and if your Books inspired that view then it's not an insult, it is ignorance manifested via educational indoctrination, therefore an accurate assessment.

The ports losing business doesn't matter, first of all you only lose service to 27% of people, but you also cut traveling distance down by 40% so it works out better for the companies. You would also only lose a fraction of exports, imports would remain as they are.

You would loss all exports and imports intended for outside the coastal states if the interstate system and rail system is blockaded. You seem to ignore, or havrn't seen/experienced the vast flows from ports inland....

Land locked nations rarely if ever have any power, and never negotiating power. They almost always fight long bloody wars to get a shipping corridor, and they almost always lose. The UN has stepped in and negotiated several through Africa actually in order to end the wars. In the US there would be no such reason to do that, because the stronger coastal powers would simply annex the inner states.

Idiocy. The military realignment would empower the internal states in this case. They surely wouldn't align with states politically opposed to their very existence or stop their funding. The UN? They'd be on the side of landlocked states as the source of food supplies for the rest of the world.


Name a single 'war' in Europe, far closer to our culture and economics than Africa, that occurred based on shipping issues? Monetary gain is sufficient to ensure export/import access. Again, as you have ignored, there are alternative ports available to those states without ports. Those coastal states are powerless without the food and resources of the rest. Collapse and riots almost a certainty.

And yes, it really is a small fraction of Republicans that feel the way you do, primaries don't reflect a party. The people who vote in primaries are deeply entrenched, have stronger beliefs over their parties core platform, and are looking for someone like them. Primaries do not give rise to moderates, and moderates don't vote in primaries. It's basic strategy to move to the fringe for a primary and to the middle for the general.

Either way those primaries are indicative of the voter base. That's the factor that will be the downfall of your "establishment". If you don't think the massive increase in conservative representation doesn't reflect that base, your mistaken.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
No. But "everybody doing the same thing" Is fascism. No matter how much spin you put on it. We aren't ants and if your Books inspired that view then it's not an insult, it is ignorance manifested via educational indoctrination, therefore an accurate assessment.

So everyone being able to plead the fifth in court or drive 65 on the freeway is fascism, got it.

You would loss all exports and imports intended for outside the coastal states if the interstate system and rail system is blockaded. You seem to ignore, or havrn't seen/experienced the vast flows from ports inland....

States can only blockade what's in their territory. There's nothing to stop Pennsylvania from shipping to Ohio except for Ohio blocking their rail lines, or Pennsylvania being unwilling. Coastal states would be plenty willing to ship into a land locked state, for an exorbitantly increased price. It's that they wouldn't allow for cheap shipping out of that state. If Kansas wants access to goods they're going to pay a hefty premium, and if they want to sell goods they're going to pay a crippling tax. The two combined will break them economically.

Idiocy. The military realignment would empower the internal states in this case. They surely wouldn't align with states politically opposed to their very existence or stop their funding. The UN? They'd be on the side of landlocked states as the source of food supplies for the rest of the world.

Land locked nations have no Navy, they automatically lose as they can't protect naval shipping routes. The midwest has few options to get goods from. What are they going to do, bring them in through a port in Texas? New England would blockade the ships with goods bound for the midwest and cut them off. They're in even worse shape with an air force because they have very little of the aerospace industry (Missouri has a little), and none of the military infrastructure to support an air force as thanks to US geography it's best to put those defenses along the borders.

Which again goes back to the point that the midwest would not be a significant player, they would find themselves broken up and annexed into a bunch of other states that don't share their values, and then they would have even less representation than they do now.

Name a single 'war' in Europe, far closer to our culture and economics than Africa, that occurred based on shipping issues? Monetary gain is sufficient to ensure export/import access. Again, as you have ignored, there are alternative ports available to those states without ports. Those coastal states are powerless without the food and resources of the rest. Collapse and riots almost a certainty.

World War 1. A significant part in the alliances that lead to that world war were due to deals made thanks to landlocked status.

And no, the coastal states are not powerless. The midwest isn't the only area that grows food, and food can be imported from other nations. Coastal states can import from many places, land locked states can only import/export from a few.

Either way those primaries are indicative of the voter base. That's the factor that will be the downfall of your "establishment". If you don't think the massive increase in conservative representation doesn't reflect that base, your mistaken.

Conservatives keep winning, and yet none of their agenda gets passed, and what you think is the base keeps getting angrier and angrier to the point where people like you are openly advocating either a permanent shutdown of the federal government or actual secession. Since 2010 the Republican party has been dominated by the Tea Party and they have done nothing but win, win, win for a couple reasons:
1. The electorate in presidential years is different from that in off years, so 2/3 of the elections have involved one group. Moderates really don't care about those elections at all.
2. We had a President going into his second term and people tend to vote against them then, it's part of that whole balance thing.

The far right has quite literally gotten everything they asked for, and it sounds like they haven't won anything at all. If things aren't working I would suggest to look within. Maybe if they elected people who ran on a platform of being competent rather than a platform of trying to make things disfunctional some of their agenda would get through.

Either way the TP's time is near it's end, it's a vocal minority of a party, it's splitting said party in 2, and it has begun to cannibalize the main party which will destroy it's support. The vast majority of Republicans can't wait, because while people like you feel they don't have a party the moderates really don't have a party.

a reply to: Aazadan

As far as 'clean air or speed limits' vs "everybody doing the same thing" well, all I can say if you don't see the difference between the two and how the latter crosses the line into fascism , then there's no help for it.

Some form, agreed upon by the new union members, of the Constitution is a basic motivation for dissolving the Union.

Accept it or not, that motivation would trump any left/centralized gov't opposition. By numbers, by strength of will, of self-sacrifice.

The strength of the so-called coast states, the Ca.s. the Ma.s, my Wash. are near non-existent. Could they survive individually or in some grouping amongst themselves? Perhaps. Dominate the surrounding states? Not a chance.

My view of this is extreme. It is only an option. Hopefully unnecessary. More a last resort, than anything.

Be assured though, that reconciliation with the left is no option at all.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Some form, agreed upon by the new union members, of the Constitution is a basic motivation for dissolving the Union.

Previous posts of yours have suggested you don't understand or don't support the equal protection clause as it has to do with marriage. Therefore you do not support the Constitution in it's entirety, you and people like you if given their own nation would not pass an identical Constitution. That same Constitution that you say is perfect and divinely inspired.

Actually, on the subject of potentially not understanding it, I'm genuinely curious since I believe part of a general education for people should require the equivalent of 1 year worth of law school (which I also fully realize isn't realistic, since including everything we should include would put people in compulsory education until age 25). How many classes have you taken on Constitutional Law, or any law at all?

Be assured though, that reconciliation with the left is no option at all.....

So you want civil war? Are you willing to fire the first shot? If you are, why haven't you done so yet? The fact that you haven't done so tells me that you're not willing to do it. Which means that deep down your statement is false because you don't want to carry it out, you just want to fantasize about it rather than deal with a reality where people with different viewpoints actually have to get along with each other.

Back on point or back on one main point.

Question: Are Republicans getting angrier? Answer: Yes...well at least a large percentage of them. Anger is never productive or a help in reaching goals or objectives...worse, it's not really anger it's OUTRAGE! How dare Obama destroy the constitution! How dare the Libs try to take away our guns! How dare a socialist run for president! How dare....this and that. Sometimes this anger and outrage is really misplaced and not anchored in reality. You may dislike Obama's policies and actions but we know he hasn't destroyed the country or the constitution. When people say that they're parroting what the media has told them to think and say.

But why are so many republicans outraged and angry? I just mentioned it above...And let's be clear this isn't' all of them and maybe not even the Majority but it's a sizable chunk of them. Why? I blame the media. It is the media.

Look at MSNBC for example...Rachael Maddow, Lawrence ODonnell.. I think those are two of the most popular left leaning hosts...You may not agree with them, you may hate they're statements and arguments and comentary, you may think they have an evil agenda, but they aren't angry, or hateful When they're on. Now look at counterparts like Ann Coulter (Hateful), Sean Hannity (More Whinny than anything), Rush Limbaugh and Bill ORielly (full of hate and anger and outrage)...they're always upset, angry and hateful and whinny.

You are what you consume. That goes for Food as well as Media. You can't digest a steady stream of hateful, mean, angry, whinning mentality and not be effected. You listen to angry people all day long on the radio and on tv and you will be effected. Your mentallity will change. That's psychologically proven.

originally posted by: amazing
Back on point or back on one main point.

Question: Are Republicans getting angrier? Answer: Yes...well at least a large percentage of them. Anger is never productive or a help in reaching goals or objectives...worse, it's not really anger it's OUTRAGE! How dare Obama destroy the constitution! How dare the Libs try to take away our guns! How dare a socialist run for president! How dare....this and that. Sometimes this anger and outrage is really misplaced and not anchored in reality. You may dislike Obama's policies and actions but we know he hasn't destroyed the country or the constitution. When people say that they're parroting what the media has told them to think and say.

Talking about anger, 10 minutes ago I was listening to Hannity, he was interviewing a US congressman who said "we can't be doing just enough to stop aggression and then back off, when you're dealing with a backwards people who don't even believe in God, you have to kill them". Followed by the congressman and Hannity praising the nuking of Japan because it killed the civilians rather than give them the chance to join the military and oppose us in the future.

It's pretty scary when we now have members of congress calling for mass genocide because people don't believe in their God, and because it's easier to preemptively kill people than give them the chance to attack us.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Back on point or back on one main point.

Question: Are Republicans getting angrier? Answer: Yes...well at least a large percentage of them. Anger is never productive or a help in reaching goals or objectives...worse, it's not really anger it's OUTRAGE! How dare Obama destroy the constitution! How dare the Libs try to take away our guns! How dare a socialist run for president! How dare....this and that. Sometimes this anger and outrage is really misplaced and not anchored in reality. You may dislike Obama's policies and actions but we know he hasn't destroyed the country or the constitution. When people say that they're parroting what the media has told them to think and say.

Talking about anger, 10 minutes ago I was listening to Hannity, he was interviewing a US congressman who said "we can't be doing just enough to stop aggression and then back off, when you're dealing with a backwards people who don't even believe in God, you have to kill them". Followed by the congressman and Hannity praising the nuking of Japan because it killed the civilians rather than give them the chance to join the military and oppose us in the future.

It's pretty scary when we now have members of congress calling for mass genocide because people don't believe in their God, and because it's easier to preemptively kill people than give them the chance to attack us.

Yeah. We need a lot less war. It's easy to say Nuke, bomb, invade, send in special forces, send the navy over there, but that's our servicemen and women. It's Veterans' day and I know several wounded vets, friends that have been blown up, and shot and suffer from PTSD and physical injuries. We should remember that we put actual real people in harms way when we talk war.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Some form, agreed upon by the new union members, of the Constitution is a basic motivation for dissolving the Union.

Previous posts of yours have suggested you don't understand or don't support the equal protection clause as it has to do with marriage. Therefore you do not support the Constitution in it's entirety, you and people like you if given their own nation would not pass an identical Constitution. That same Constitution that you say is perfect and divinely inspired.

Actually, on the subject of potentially not understanding it, I'm genuinely curious since I believe part of a general education for people should require the equivalent of 1 year worth of law school (which I also fully realize isn't realistic, since including everything we should include would put people in compulsory education until age 25). How many classes have you taken on Constitutional Law, or any law at all?

Now we have to be an aspiring ambulance chaser to have an opinion. Guffaw. Rather when debate fails, one resorts to status as opposed to germane points. As far as the current version of the Constitution? "Interpreted" out of recognition of the original. My statement was "some form or the original Constitution". Not yours whatsoever. Marriage equality. Purely an arbitrary. One union represents the continuance of the race. The other? An indulgence of impulse for an extremely small minority. Nowhere near equal in by books.

Be assured though, that reconciliation with the left is no option at all.....

So you want civil war? Are you willing to fire the first shot? If you are, why haven't you done so yet? The fact that you haven't done so tells me that you're not willing to do it. Which means that deep down your statement is false because you don't want to carry it out, you just want to fantasize about it rather than deal with a reality where people with different viewpoints actually have to get along with each other.

Now we have to be an aspiring ambulance chaser to have an opinion. Guffaw. Rather when debate fails, one resorts to status as opposed to germane points. As far as the current version of the Constitution? "Interpreted" out of recognition of the original. My statement was "some form or the original Constitution". Not yours whatsoever. Marriage equality. Purely an arbitrary. One union represents the continuance of the race. The other? An indulgence of impulse for an extremely small minority. Nowhere near equal in by books.

No, sonny. I would avoid civil war or revolution at all costs. Far better to agree to disagree and divvy up the nation allowing those of your ilk to continue on your merry way while the rest of us go in ours. That is compromise, IMO, and avoids the above options. However, you and yours brook zero tolerance for our beliefs and values. It is you who doesn't compromise and demand we do so when the pendulum is swinging away from your agenda.

Again, perhaps even that option won't be necessary. There's one more Presidential election that 'could' move thing in a direction in our liking. Failing that? I have my 'outs'.

You will require more practice before you move in your political career, methinks.

a reply to: amazing

Anger is preferable to a sheep-like acceptance that seems the alternative.

I actually feel you guys fear the reaction you get from the right. Yet, the right hasn't done much of anything to give voice to that 'anger'. Do you have an explanation for that?

I see disagreement. I see two parties that have betrayed their trust. That prefer their own comfort zone engendered by the current 'system'. I see a group that is using the political options in accordance with the laws of the land. Making their points and swinging more and more into their camp. Perhaps that's the source of your 'fear' at the 'anger'.