PDA

View Full Version : Politics in a Nutshell


tstew
04-18-2012, 04:33 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bCaYD.jpg

MissBrattified
04-18-2012, 04:34 PM
:thumbsup

Cindy
04-18-2012, 04:48 PM
:thumbsup

AreYouReady?
04-18-2012, 06:58 PM
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7799/10056148shinynewhammerh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/10056148shinynewhammerh.jpg/)

bbyrd009
04-18-2012, 07:27 PM
lol

Jay
04-18-2012, 08:47 PM
That hurts.

AreYouReady?
04-18-2012, 08:51 PM
What hurts? The truth?

Jay
04-18-2012, 09:08 PM
What hurts? The truth?

It just hurts.

AreYouReady?
04-18-2012, 09:09 PM
Headache?

Pressing-On
04-18-2012, 09:38 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bCaYD.jpg

Humorous, but not factual. The Tea Party had a great influence in the 2010 elections. The Tea Party demonstrated that when fed up, your voice will be heard. :thumbsup

tstew
04-18-2012, 10:10 PM
Humorous, but not factual. The Tea Party had a great influence in the 2010 elections. The Tea Party demonstrated that when fed up, your voice will be heard. :thumbsup

What has changed of significance?

Pressing-On
04-18-2012, 11:05 PM
What has changed of significance?

It's simply a balance of power and necessary for our Democracy.

tstew
04-18-2012, 11:33 PM
It's simply a balance of power and necessary for our Democracy.

I started typing a response, but I just don't have the energy :). There is no balance of power though. A very select few use the current system to have power over the masses. This two party system and this perceived "balance of power" are just useful tools. Ultimately it is all headed the same direction.

Jay
04-18-2012, 11:54 PM
No the balance was supposed to be in out three branches of government. However, they have all changed their positions so that the judiciary writes laws, the president writes laws, and the congress holds the trials and enforces the laws. We need to reset our government and revive the Constitution.

Dagwood
04-19-2012, 07:23 AM
http://i.imgur.com/bCaYD.jpg

Very well-said!

I'm tempted to do something similar, stand on a street corner with something like this, even though I'm not one to stand and voice politics publicly...

bbyrd009
04-19-2012, 08:21 AM
Hmm; but that would be anti-politics. Wouldn't it?
I started typing a response, but I just don't have the energy :). There is no balance of power though. A very select few use the current system to have power over the masses. This two party system and this perceived "balance of power" are just useful tools. Ultimately it is all headed the same direction.

What they said.

Pressing-On
04-19-2012, 09:17 AM
I started typing a response, but I just don't have the energy :). There is no balance of power though. A very select few use the current system to have power over the masses. This two party system and this perceived "balance of power" are just useful tools. Ultimately it is all headed the same direction.

We currently have a great Governor who is strong on Constitutional rights. He has more lawsuits against the Federal Government than just about anyone.

I would be more fearful of standing here holding the sign you posted than making sure our Government knew we had a voice. That is like laying down our guns - no can do.

Pressing-On
04-19-2012, 09:19 AM
No the balance was supposed to be in out three branches of government. However, they have all changed their positions so that the judiciary writes laws, the president writes laws, and the congress holds the trials and enforces the laws. We need to reset our government and revive the Constitution.

I agree with this and we do need to support and elect someone who will revive the Constitution. I support Newt. He has never changed on that score. Too bad people can't see it. Newt/West 2012!

Jay
04-19-2012, 12:33 PM
I agree with this and we do need to support and elect someone who will revive the Constitution. I support Newt. He has never changed on that score. Too bad people can't see it. Newt/West 2012!


I will plug my nose very tightly and vote for him if he wins (I cast my ballot for Santorum here in Illinois. However, there is just something about Newt that strikes me as slimy, and I can not forgive his flipping from stand to stand within 24-48 hours after he makes a statement. I can not trust him.

Sadly the best candidate were eliminated too early in the process.

Pressing-On
04-19-2012, 07:57 PM
I will plug my nose very tightly and vote for him if he wins (I cast my ballot for Santorum here in Illinois. However, there is just something about Newt that strikes me as slimy, and I can not forgive his flipping from stand to stand within 24-48 hours after he makes a statement. I can not trust him.

Sadly the best candidate were eliminated too early in the process.

Flipping on what?

RevDWW
04-19-2012, 08:01 PM
Humorous, but not factual. The Tea Party had a great influence in the 2010 elections. The Tea Party demonstrated that when fed up, your voice will be heard. :thumbsup
The problem is those voted in with the help of the Tea Party don't have enough power to push through their agenda. Keep voting them in and soon they will.

Pressing-On
04-19-2012, 08:07 PM
The problem is those voted in with the help of the Tea Party don't have enough power to push through their agenda. Keep voting them in and soon they will.

Yes, you are spot on! That is the plan! Thanks, RevDWW! You get it! :thumbsup

Dagwood
04-20-2012, 07:13 AM
Here's another "politics in a nutshell." It's a quote by one of my fav poltiical figures, Thomas Jefferson. I would think folks on either side of the aisle would agree. However, I'm afraid, even though they would stake their claim to agreement, they obliviously or unintentionally disregard it...

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

Some political figures want to give us other people's money and cram certain lifestyles down our throats, while other figures want to give us Jesus and shake their bony fingers at those not living like them.

If we were truly a strong country and society, we wouldn't need politics to dictate or regulate what we feel is best for us.

Anyone care to dispute that?

Jay
04-20-2012, 10:11 AM
Flipping on what?


Global warming is man made and the Libyan-American war for starters. There have been some others, but they did not make nearly the news. Further, for the duration of the Bush administration he was seen to be very close to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. I do not see him as being quite as reliable as he seems.

I once heard my father compare him to Perot, and I have come to agree with that idea. If he had not stayed in, we might not be looking at another candidate with liberal leanings running against Obama.

Pressing-On
04-20-2012, 01:28 PM
Global warming is man made and the Libyan-American war for starters. There have been some others, but they did not make nearly the news. Further, for the duration of the Bush administration he was seen to be very close to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. I do not see him as being quite as reliable as he seems.
Thanks for your response. I do enjoy reading someone's opposing views.

I don't have as much of a problem with the Global Warming issue. Before the IPCC emails were hacked into and released in 2009, there was large support that Global Warming was happening. I thought that we contributed to some degree.

“First of all, I did the commercial with Pelosi to make a case that conservatives ought to be prepared to stand in the arena and debate."

This really allows you to fully understand Newt Gingrich, IMO. He has always had a quest to fashion solutions and that is how he came up with Contract for America. The problem is that the left has treated Global Warming as a political issue and that left Newt sitting on a sawed off branch. He's a brilliant man that thinks on a totally different level and, IMO, he is largely misunderstood.

Newt is on record with his testimony in Congress against Gore on the Cap and Trade. He argues that he has always defended a "free market" approach. You can view that here Brilliant rebuttal!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw

Gingrich's earlier program on cap and trade (2007) was in regard to "sulfur", which is a real pollutant. That isn't related to the Global Warming issue though. In 2007 he introduced a measure to regulate CO2 "if" free markets were involved. Politifact even had this to say, "But we found solid evidence he did, with the condition that carbon caps be combined with tax incentives to encourage energy companies to innovate."

He always argues the side of "free market" and "tax incentive" solutions. Gingrich always explained that his idea and the left's idea of cap and trade showed two fundamentally different approaches. He was never in favor of allowing the government , but the markets, to be the mechanism to enforce it.

On Libya, He said that the two statements were not contradictory as he was speaking of what "he would have liked to have done" (prior to March 3) as opposed to what "he would have to do" considering Obama's actions. He interviewed with Greta Van Susteren on March 7, so I would expect him to have a different plan of action after Obama declared that Gadhafi had to go. It just makes sense that he would, IMO. It looks like media hype to me.

I once heard my father compare him to Perot, and I have come to agree with that idea. If he had not stayed in, we might not be looking at another candidate with liberal leanings running against Obama.
I know we say that a third party pulls votes away, but from my perspective of the campaign in 1992, I knew that Clinton was going to win. You could tell he was engaging the people and they wanted him. I could feel that Bush knew it as well and didn't seem to fight as hard in that campaign. Or, it could have been a deal struck between the two parties that I was feeling. I don't know. Either way, I knew Clinton was going to win. I don't really believe Perot had a thing to do with that. That is just my observation.

And I don't think you can blame Gingrich for Romney. He has only received 42% of the vote, showing that 60% of the people don't want him. That his own problem to deal with. It has nothing to do with Gingrich or Santorum.

tstew
04-28-2012, 11:10 PM
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m36741RBXR1r3273eo1_500.jpg

AreYouReady?
04-28-2012, 11:22 PM
:ursofunny

Yep.

bbyrd009
04-29-2012, 01:30 PM
The problem is those voted in with the help of the Tea Party don't have enough power to push through their agenda. Keep voting them in and soon they will.

...assuming, of course, that you have abandoned your salvation.
This directly contradicts Scripture, and this advice will have you in hell.
Sorry, I just don't know a nicer way to say that; read your Bible.

bbyrd009
04-29-2012, 01:31 PM
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m36741RBXR1r3273eo1_500.jpg

Amen to that.

bbyrd009
04-29-2012, 01:38 PM
We currently have a great Governor who is strong on Constitutional rights. He has more lawsuits against the Federal Government than just about anyone.

I would be more fearful of standing here holding the sign you posted than making sure our Government knew we had a voice. That is like laying down our guns - no can do.

Then don't pretend you follow Christ in this, ok?
And our voice has nothing to do with government,
in the way you ascribe--the relationship is exactly the opposite,
in fact.

You outline that enough unified voices might appeal
to the Government, when in fact it is the Government
that must appeal to the unified voices.
Witness Pol's running to get in front of...whatever,
the tea party thing, etc.