Ridiculous right wing fringe, Act I, Scene I

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,756
Likes
42,931
#1
Well, leave it to the loons who claim they are defending the Constitution to do something blatantly unconstitutional -- and to make fools of themselves to score cheap political points they don't need in the process.

Presidential 'birther bill' advances in state House


Hope someone on the right has the sense to derail this nonsense. McCain showed a glimpse of intellectual honesty when he told that old lady that no, Obama isn't an "A-rab."

You know, even if the GOP re-takes the House this year, given who they will owe for that power the one thing you can count on is that they'll screw it up in about a month.
 
#2
#2
Current partisan rhetoric is absolutely exhausting. I wish all the liberals and conservatives would just strangle each other and get it over with.
 
#3
#3
IPorange said:
Current partisan rhetoric is absolutely exhausting. I wish all the liberals and conservatives would just strangle each other and get it over with.
Click to expand...

That's about how I feel right now honestly. I don't think that anyone up there is an American.
 
#6
#6
Volinbham, making a late-night appearance. You do raise a question I had myself, what are the *blatantly* unconstitutional parts, LG?
 
#7
#7
Velo Vol said:
I'm not sure either, though it is a state claiming the authority to enforce a federal requirement.
Click to expand...

But there are all sorts of election requirements to be on ballots of states. Maybe it's unconstitutional/maybe not.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Well, leave it to the loons who claim they are defending the Constitution to do something blatantly unconstitutional -- and to make fools of themselves to score cheap political points they don't need in the process.
Click to expand...

What is unConstitutional about a state requiring candidates to show a birth certificate?

:unsure:
 
#10
#10
It's, "blatantly unconstitutional" when liberals don't like it.

It's, "rightful dissent" when they do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Well, leave it to the loons who claim they are defending the Constitution to do something blatantly unconstitutional -- and to make fools of themselves to score cheap political points they don't need in the process.

Presidential 'birther bill' advances in state House


Hope someone on the right has the sense to derail this nonsense. McCain showed a glimpse of intellectual honesty when he told that old lady that no, Obama isn't an "A-rab."

You know, even if the GOP re-takes the House this year, given who they will owe for that power the one thing you can count on is that they'll screw it up in about a month.
Click to expand...

Who exactly will they owe? The current rhetoric is a little over the top but let's be honest here, it has been that way for almost 10 years now. If you don't like it then you can blame two of the most polarizing presidents in our time. I know you will conceive all sorts of shady reasons for people not liking Obama but in the end they aren't all that different from the reasons so many disliked Bush.

If we really want to put an end to the insane rhetoric we need to elect presidents who fall inline with the majority of America, somewhere in the middle. This is exactly what I was telling you in the lead up to Obama's winning the presidency by the way.
 
#14
#14
IPorange said:
I suspect we have a lot in common when it comes to the bottom line of things then, despite coming from two different directions on them.
Click to expand...

I only differ with you on a few things we have discussed. We might differ on more, but your right about having more in common as far as beliefs than not.
 
#15
#15
I will use "blatant" in my own terms

Blatant stupidity- The Obama Administration and its followers
Blatant disregard- Obama's view towards the Constitution in general
Blatant arrogance- View of Congress and Government, in General, towards the People
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
Dumb but I'm not sure it's blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Velo Vol said:
I'm not sure either, though it is a state claiming the authority to enforce a federal requirement.
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
Volinbham, making a late-night appearance. You do raise a question I had myself, what are the *blatantly* unconstitutional parts, LG?
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
But there are all sorts of election requirements to be on ballots of states. Maybe it's unconstitutional/maybe not.
Click to expand...


Even if one assumes that an individual state can insert itself into the process of vetting and qualifying a presidential candidate, such that if in its own view he does not meet the requirements then they can leave him off the ballot, this is just obvious pandering to the Obamahate groups out there.

I can't say that they are alone. We've had a fairly moderate Republican governor here in Florida for awhile, Charlie Crist. He's a political animal, but reasonably responsible in his decision-making. Well, he is getting crushed in the polls down here for the Republican nomination for US Senate by a super right wing complainer, Marco Rubio.

A year ago, Rubio was behind by 30 points, noe he's up by that many. And it is almost entirely founded upon noting that Crist took stimulus dollars for the state and that is viewed by the uber right down here as being too close to Obama.

Folks, Crist was on the short list to be McCain's VP pick!! He was in the top 3 or 4 getting talked about. And now he's too pro-Obama?

There is a groudswell of antagonism within the Republican party that blindly knee-jerks to anything that Obama is associated with. If you are a Republican official and you are not willing to come out and say that everything Obama does is totally evil, then you are done with the base because whoever is hunting for your job is going to label you weak, and compromising.

Its amazing the level of anger out there about this. The Gingrich Contract With America tide was nothing compared to this.

The folks now driving the Republican bus, the Tea Party folks, the birthers, etc., have zero tolerance for anyone withing their party who has the slightest bipartisan sense to them. That's why you see the likes of McCain or even Bohner, who have at times shown some desire to work with the other side, are now running for the hills on the far right.

This Arizona thing is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, which is seethign resentment towards traditional politics of compromise. They will settle for nothing less than a rabid conservative ideologue. Heck, during 2008 campaign they could barely hide their contempt for their very own war hero Republican nominee.
 
#19
#19
"Folks, Crist was on the short list to be McCain's VP pick!! He was in the top 3 or 4 getting talked about. And now he's too pro-Obama?"

so? mccain was a democrat.
 
#20
#20
A few more LAAPs and you've got yourself a manifesto there LG - congrats. I guess Clinton was right, angry rhetoric can warp minds.
 
#22
#22
100% agree with that post. It really is sad that the Repubs are so against compromise when the Dems are just screaming for their input.

and how quickly we forget the absolute hatred spewed toward the last Pres
 
#23
#23
Whether you agree with him or not, he has a point regarding the far right fringe. What do the Republicans do in 2012 if this keeps up.....nominate a moderate and risk alienating the tea party types or nominate a candidate the tea party peeps agree with and risk alienating the moderate Republicans?
 
#24
#24
VolInMn said:
Whether you agree with him or not, he has a point regarding the far right fringe. What do the Republicans do in 2012 if this keeps up.....nominate a moderate and risk alienating the tea party types or nominate a candidate the tea party peeps agree with and risk alienating the moderate Republicans?
Click to expand...

when has either fringe mattered beyond getting Obama elected? Takes a catastrophic predecessor to make the fringes matter. So far, Obama is so far left that he's allowing the GS crowd a voice. He keeps going, you can't complain that the right nutties are in it.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
Even if one assumes that an individual state can insert itself into the process of vetting and qualifying a presidential candidate, such that if in its own view he does not meet the requirements then they can leave him off the ballot, this is just obvious pandering to the Obamahate groups out there.

I can't say that they are alone. We've had a fairly moderate Republican governor here in Florida for awhile, Charlie Crist. He's a political animal, but reasonably responsible in his decision-making. Well, he is getting crushed in the polls down here for the Republican nomination for US Senate by a super right wing complainer, Marco Rubio.

A year ago, Rubio was behind by 30 points, noe he's up by that many. And it is almost entirely founded upon noting that Crist took stimulus dollars for the state and that is viewed by the uber right down here as being too close to Obama.

The average American is tired of the big spending by big govt, that is why he is getting slammed in the polls.

Folks, Crist was on the short list to be McCain's VP pick!! He was in the top 3 or 4 getting talked about. And now he's too pro-Obama?

McCain is too close to Barry, politically anyway. That is the main reason he lost.

There is a groudswell of antagonism within the Republican party that blindly knee-jerks to anything that Obama is associated with. If you are a Republican official and you are not willing to come out and say that everything Obama does is totally evil, then you are done with the base because whoever is hunting for your job is going to label you weak, and compromising.

Its amazing the level of anger out there about this. The Gingrich Contract With America tide was nothing compared to this.

The folks now driving the Republican bus, the Tea Party folks, the birthers, etc., have zero tolerance for anyone withing their party who has the slightest bipartisan sense to them. That's why you see the likes of McCain or even Bohner, who have at times shown some desire to work with the other side, are now running for the hills on the far right.

To you all on the left bipartisan means that those on the right have to move towards the left. And what has Barry done as far as bipartisanship in concerned?

This Arizona thing is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, which is seethign resentment towards traditional politics of compromise. They will settle for nothing less than a rabid conservative ideologue. Heck, during 2008 campaign they could barely hide their contempt for their very own war hero Republican nominee.
Click to expand...

.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top