we need a new Republican party - not small changes

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

Post Reply
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12899
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by mvscal »

Go fuck yourself, moron.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
The Seer
Just the Facts
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Maricopa County

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by The Seer »

Repubs will never hold another major office in Mexifornia.....ever...

I wonder why.


Image
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

While we're at it, we need a new democrat party, too.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21755
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by smackaholic »

Paul is right and it needs to go in his direction, which is more libertarian, not the democrat lite direction that jsc seems to want it to go.

A libertarian party would lose some social conservatives, but, I believe it would more than make up for it in drawing some dems who are tired of the nanny state as well as our continueing to stick our noses into places militarily. I would be OK with some of these ventures abroad if we didn't half-ass it as we currently are doing. Bette to just bring everybody home.

Our foreign policy really needs to be we will keep our noses out of others affairs, but, if we do have to stick our nose in, we will also stick our cock in hard and dry. That policy worked pretty good during WWII.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

Your country needs Socialism now more than ever.

Real Socialism. Means of production in the hands of the workers via labour collectivization.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Screw_Michigan »

Papa Willie wrote:Both parties are fucked right now.
Excuse me? The Democrats aren't the party having the problems winning national elections, you fucking idiot.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
Left Seater
36,000 ft above the chaos
Posts: 13489
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:31 pm
Location: The Great State of Texas

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Left Seater »

Jsc810 wrote: Of course, Paul is correct
Jsc810 wrote: Paul is a dumbass.

At least you are consistent in your inconsistencies.
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote: I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:Both parties are fucked right now.
Excuse me? The Democrats aren't the party having the problems winning national elections, you fucking idiot.

By printing money and buying elections with it.

That actually counts as "quite fucked up."

But to your "point" -- on the national level, there are 536 elected officials. Take a big guess which party the majority of them are from... you fucking idiot.

Brain... THEN keyboard.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9701
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Diego in Seattle »

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:Both parties are fucked right now.
Excuse me? The Democrats aren't the party having the problems winning national elections, you fucking idiot.
A party that rests on the laurels of being the lesser of two evils won't be around for very long.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

Diego in Seattle wrote:
A party that rests on the laurels of being the lesser of two evils won't be around for very long.

Kill 'em all, and let some non-government-endorsed deity sort 'em out.


Screwey -- figured out why you're stupid... this time? Such a consistent theme.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by poptart »

What a fraud Jsc is.

Says he was a Goldwater Republican -- yet says Rand Paul needs to be kicked out of th GOP.


:lol:
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by poptart »

Rand Paul is a Christian but he's not a... THUMPER.

He wants the gov out of social issues, basically.
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Screw_Michigan »

poptart wrote:Rand Paul is a Christian but he's not a... THUMPER.
He's also an idiot. Trashing Bill Clinton is the sign of a Pathetic Loser. Go plagiarize another speech, you fucking fraud.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

Screw_Michigan wrote:Trashing Bill Clinton is the sign of a Pathetic Loser.

Trashing Bill Clinton is the sign of someone with a basic understanding of economics.

Dude thought that turning America into a nation of pencil-pushers while the rest of the world performed the labor was a sustainable policy... genius.

And very few in Congress want to do anything about reversing the horribly failed policy -- Rand Paul is one of them.

And GaySC -- you're an idiot. Paul is staunchly in favor of the "wall of separation."
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

Jsc810 wrote:In addition to opposing abortion even in cases of incest and rape, he thinks states have the right to restrict, regulate, and criminalize consensual sex between adults in private, even between husband and wife.

But really, he just wants less government. :meds:

So, to point out Rand Paul's political beliefs, you link an article by Ron Paul?

Go run some windsprints.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

Both Rand and Ron believe that Roe v Wade was a complete travesty (as do I) that was wayyyyyy beyond the SCOTUS' jurisdiction (which is irrefutable), and the 10th Amendment dictates that it's a state's rights issue.

Glad I could help.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9701
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Diego in Seattle »

88 wrote:Diego's only desire is that Republicans lose and Democrats win. He would continue to have that desire even if all of the elected Democrats squatted and shat diarrhea on his head daily.
You're fortunate to not be subject to workplace drug testing...

Give me a republican candidate who was more interested in workers in the middle class than fellating billionaires & wasn't trying to establish a theocracy, and I'd vote for them. But we both know that the republicans would never run a candidate like that.

I don't give a shit whether a candidate has a (D) or an (R) after their name if they cling to the same shitty platforms. The dems have their share of shit, but that pile is much smaller than the republicans' pile.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

88 wrote:Jsc810 thinks the biggest issues facing the federal government are abortion and same sex marriage (and isn't it hard to believe that The Framers somehow forgot to address those two monumentally important issues in the Constitution and its amendments when defining the bounds of the federal government's limited power?).

So, what you're saying is if the Constitution doesn't authorize the fed to do something, then it's off limits?

Thanks for reaffirming my basic reading skills.

Makes one wonder if JSC didn't get his law degree from a box of CrackerJacks, although a case could be made for gay marriage, but no one has made it yet).

Screwy is worried about someone trashing Bill Clinton (a man who lost his law license and was impeached for lying under oath about workplace sexual indiscretions, mind you). Clinton is the guy who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and who's administration actively blew the air into the mortgage balloon. But he was great. Really, really great. Really.
How he's not ranked as "worst president EVER" is beyond me. But people elected his housing-bubble lapdog to the presidency, and want his wife to be the next president... beyond ponderous. How's our manufacturing sector doing these days? Was by far #1 in the world (by an order of magnitude) before BJ reengineered it.
Diego's only desire is that Republicans lose and Democrats win. He would continue to have that desire even if all of the elected Democrats squatted and shat diarrhea on his head daily (which is close to the current situation, actually).
A dictatorship frees one from actual thought... not his strong suit.
Schlomart is at least someone with a plan. It is a completely fucked up plan. But he has one. And for that, you have to give him props.

At least he has an individual opinion. A horrible one, but at least he's not a puppet for his political masters (easy enough for an Upper Mexican, I suppose).
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

Diego in Seattle wrote: Give me a republican candidate who was more interested in workers in the middle class than fellating billionaires

Which candidate (either of the last 2 presidential elections) did Wall Street donate more money to?

You need an intervention, bro.

Obama eclipsed W's Wall Street grift-spectacular. But they both did it.

Light coming on?
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Left Seater
36,000 ft above the chaos
Posts: 13489
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:31 pm
Location: The Great State of Texas

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Left Seater »

Diego in Seattle wrote: I don't give a shit whether a candidate has a (D) or an (R) after their name as long as they polish the union knob.

Fixed that for you.
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote: I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Dinsdale »

I see the UAW just got the death-blow.

"We don't want to be Detroit, thanks."
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by poptart »

:lol:


RACK 88!


Hilarious.
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9701
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Diego in Seattle »

Dinsdale wrote:I see the UAW just got the death-blow.

"We don't want to be Detroit, thanks."
Of course it took the illegal coercive act of Senator Bob Corker (R) lying through his teeth to get the workers to vote no.

Nothing to see here....Just move along....
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
Moving Sale

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Moving Sale »

Dinsdale wrote: So, what you're saying is if the Constitution doesn't authorize the fed to do something, then it's off limits?

Thanks for reaffirming my basic reading skills.
Close. The federal government (what you called 'the fed') is the state government and the national government. So your statement was completely wrong, but the mistake is so universally committed you can hardly be blamed for sounding like a dumbass. At least to someone who actually knows something about our government and how and why it was formed.
User avatar
The Seer
Just the Facts
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Maricopa County

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by The Seer »

Dinsdale wrote:
Bill Clinton

How he's not ranked as "worst president EVER" is beyond me.
You must've slept through the Carter administration
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
User avatar
The Seer
Just the Facts
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Maricopa County

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by The Seer »

schmick wrote: Had prop 187, which passed in 1994, been pit in to place, California would be a wonderful place now with no deficit at all.
Calif is like that. When things start going south the people vote to correct it (frequently more than once per problem). After the people have spoken, the party in charge goes to their appointed liberal judges, pull his string, & the will of the people is nullified due to his/her loose interpretation of what's constitutional or not. It's a great system for the party in charge.
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Screw_Michigan »

88 wrote:Jsc810 thinks the biggest issues facing the federal government are abortion and same sex marriage (and isn't it hard to believe that The Framers somehow forgot to address those two monumentally important issues in the Constitution and its amendments when defining the bounds of the federal government's limited power?).

Screwy is worried about someone trashing Bill Clinton (a man who lost his law license and was impeached for lying under oath about workplace sexual indiscretions, mind you). Clinton is the guy who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and who's administration actively blew the air into the mortgage balloon. But he was great. Really, really great. Really.

Diego's only desire is that Republicans lose and Democrats win. He would continue to have that desire even if all of the elected Democrats squatted and shat diarrhea on his head daily (which is close to the current situation, actually).

Schlomart is at least someone with a plan. It is a completely fucked up plan. But he has one. And for that, you have to give him props.
So you don't have any new plan of attack, other than the one that lost the 2008 and 2012 elections? Got it. No one ever accused the GOP of having fresh or new ideas. Just get Brown vs. Board of Ed repealed while you're at it.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12899
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by mvscal »

Gotta laugh at all these libtards offering their 'helpful advice' on how Republicans can win elections.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by BSmack »

Sudden Sam wrote:This country is close to done.

I wanna move to Australia. Or Canada. Or Costa Rica. Or The Phillipines. Or Uruguay.
All socialist countries. I suppose you're going for the health care? And the Philippines have a slight issue with Islamic extremist who like to kidnap Americans. You might want to pass. Then again, with a beard you kind of look like bin Laden.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9701
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Diego in Seattle »

mvscal wrote:Gotta laugh at all these libtards offering their 'helpful advice' on how Republicans can win elections.
Gotta laugh at hw the republicons keep refusing to listen & lose the WH...twice.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

Sudden Sam wrote:This country is close to done.

I wanna move to...Canada.

Image
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by BSmack »

Sudden Sam wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:Then again, with a beard you kind of look like bin Laden.
What makes you think I'm not bin Laden?
Obama told me he's dead. And he ain't never lied to me once. Cross my heart and stick a needle in my eye.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Screw_Michigan »

mvscal wrote:Gotta laugh at all these libtards offering their 'helpful advice' on how Republicans can win elections.
Is it about purity tests or winning elections?
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12899
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by mvscal »

Of course it's about principles. You have to be a Category 5 dumbfuck to think that winning elections is the point. If winning an election does not result in smaller, less intrusive and more responsible government than I haven't won anything.

As far as the long term viability of the Republican party is concerned, they have won 5 out of the last 9 presidential elections and Billigula won with a mere 43% plurality in 92.

You remain a pitifully cretinous, mop driving fucktard.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Moving Sale

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Moving Sale »

88 wrote: The federal government should be the least concern in our lives. It should just be some small thing, that we rarely consider. What should be important is our local situation. You should be far more affected by what the shit stains in your neighborhood do politically than by what some douche bags in Washington say or do.
Et Tu with the federal government is the national government? Get your terms straight hillbilly.
Moving Sale

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Moving Sale »

So what you are saying is that if enough dumbfucks think something is true then that makes it true? That's wack.
Moving Sale

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Moving Sale »

The National Government is the Government that deals with national issues. The State government deals with State issues. The combination of the two is the Federal Government. I know you are too stupid to understand this but that doesn't make it wrong.
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes

Post by Derron »

88 wrote:You are tedious, Moving Sale. You and everyone else here know the distinctions. Why post such drivel? Does it advance any position or lead to anything entertaining? No.
Do not discourage him from posting such drivel. Keeps him from clogging bandwidth with his "black cock" blasts.
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
Post Reply