Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:08 pm
Go fuck yourself, moron.
I wonder why.
T1B
Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Page 1 of 1
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Repubs will never hold another major office in Mexifornia.....ever...
I wonder why.
I wonder why.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:31 pm
While we're at it, we need a new democrat party, too.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:17 pm
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.
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:26 pm
Your country needs Socialism now more than ever.
Real Socialism. Means of production in the hands of the workers via labour collectivization.
Real Socialism. Means of production in the hands of the workers via labour collectivization.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:02 pm
Excuse me? The Democrats aren't the party having the problems winning national elections, you fucking idiot.Papa Willie wrote:Both parties are fucked right now.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:12 pm
Jsc810 wrote: Of course, Paul is correct
Jsc810 wrote: Paul is a dumbass.
At least you are consistent in your inconsistencies.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:39 pm
Screw_Michigan wrote:Excuse me? The Democrats aren't the party having the problems winning national elections, you fucking idiot.Papa Willie wrote:Both parties are fucked right now.
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:10 am
A party that rests on the laurels of being the lesser of two evils won't be around for very long.Screw_Michigan wrote:Excuse me? The Democrats aren't the party having the problems winning national elections, you fucking idiot.Papa Willie wrote:Both parties are fucked right now.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:31 am
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:04 am
What a fraud Jsc is.
Says he was a Goldwater Republican -- yet says Rand Paul needs to be kicked out of th GOP.
Says he was a Goldwater Republican -- yet says Rand Paul needs to be kicked out of th GOP.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:09 am
Rand Paul is a Christian but he's not a... THUMPER.
He wants the gov out of social issues, basically.
He wants the gov out of social issues, basically.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:28 am
He's also an idiot. Trashing Bill Clinton is the sign of a Pathetic Loser. Go plagiarize another speech, you fucking fraud.poptart wrote:Rand Paul is a Christian but he's not a... THUMPER.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:04 am
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."
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:33 am
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:45 am
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.
Glad I could help.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:37 am
You're fortunate to not be subject to workplace drug testing...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.
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:46 am
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).
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.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.
A dictatorship frees one from actual thought... not his strong suit.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.
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).
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:50 am
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?
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:55 am
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:03 am
I see the UAW just got the death-blow.
"We don't want to be Detroit, thanks."
"We don't want to be Detroit, thanks."
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:06 am
RACK 88!
Hilarious.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:14 am
Of course it took the illegal coercive act of Senator Bob Corker (R) lying through his teeth to get the workers to vote no.Dinsdale wrote:I see the UAW just got the death-blow.
"We don't want to be Detroit, thanks."
Nothing to see here....Just move along....
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:52 am
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.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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:08 am
You must've slept through the Carter administrationDinsdale wrote:
Bill Clinton
How he's not ranked as "worst president EVER" is beyond me.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:14 am
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.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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:35 pm
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.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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:48 pm
Gotta laugh at all these libtards offering their 'helpful advice' on how Republicans can win elections.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:42 pm
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.Sudden Sam wrote:This country is close to done.
I wanna move to Australia. Or Canada. Or Costa Rica. Or The Phillipines. Or Uruguay.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:24 pm
Gotta laugh at hw the republicons keep refusing to listen & lose the WH...twice.mvscal wrote:Gotta laugh at all these libtards offering their 'helpful advice' on how Republicans can win elections.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:43 pm
Sudden Sam wrote:This country is close to done.
I wanna move to...Canada.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:05 pm
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.Sudden Sam wrote:What makes you think I'm not bin Laden?BSmack wrote:Sudden Sam wrote:Then again, with a beard you kind of look like bin Laden.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:47 pm
Is it about purity tests or winning elections?mvscal wrote:Gotta laugh at all these libtards offering their 'helpful advice' on how Republicans can win elections.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:42 pm
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.
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:01 pm
Et Tu with the federal government is the national government? Get your terms straight hillbilly.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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:56 am
So what you are saying is that if enough dumbfucks think something is true then that makes it true? That's wack.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:46 pm
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.
Re: we need a new Republican party - not small changes
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:23 am
Do not discourage him from posting such drivel. Keeps him from clogging bandwidth with his "black cock" blasts.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.