Irony: The Republican Party wants change.....

[islandman]

Hmmmm, I thought this was about change for the sake of change. Apparently it's not. You now claim the right of discernment between one candidate or the other. As opposed to your prior statement that, "They're all the same."

I must say that your conflicting positions have me confused.

Ishmael

What was about change for the sake of change? Certainly not this thread, though I can understand given the multiple, similar threads on Lit. of late.

And yes, they're the same, but still a choice needs to be made.

 

[Ishmael]

What was about change for the sake of change? Certainly not this thread, though I can understand given the multiple, similar threads on Lit. of late.

And yes, they're the same, but still a choice needs to be made.

Then going into the booth and flipping a coin is as good a choice as any, if they're all the same. Right?

Ishmael

 

[Odd_ball]

"Change" to republicans:

More nuclear power

More oil dependence

More corporate subsidies


More of the same...changes.

 

[Karen Kraft]

What was about change for the sake of change? Certainly not this thread, though I can understand given the multiple, similar threads on Lit. of late.

And yes, they're the same, but still a choice needs to be made.

Clearly, they are not the same.

Obama proposes nearly a trillion dollars in new spending and so far has accounted for only about 10% of its funding. Leaves much to be explained.

 

[The Mutt]

Bush was a Gov of a State that is bigger then MOST countries

The KENYAN fool.....................was a COMMUNITY OGRANIZER

The design of the Texas Constitution denies the governor the opportunity to exercise powers held by governors in many other states. Unlike the U.S. President, who with Senate approval appoints his cabinet, the Texas Governor must share executive power with other executive officers.

The Texas Governor also exercises less influence over the budget process than the U.S. President or many other governors.

Because judges at all levels of the Texas judiciary are elected, the Governor exercises less power over the judiciary than the U.S. President, who makes all appointments to the federal judiciary.

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/1_4_2.html

I'm sooo impressed.

 

[pinkstarfish]

 

[Odd_ball]

Clearly, they are not the same.

Obama proposes nearly a trillion dollars in new spending and so far has accounted for only about 10% of its funding. Leaves much to be explained.

As opposed to the nearly 10 trillion in current debts the Bushcos have racked up:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock

And that's without interest on Chinese loans.

 

[The_Trouvere]

What change do the democrats want? Itemize if you would.

Ishmael

1. Hike taxes on the rich.

2. Hike the tax on gasoline. Spend all the money on alternatives to automobile transportation.

3. Pass laws that interfere with the so called "rights" of gun loving creeps.

4. Get out of Iraq.

5. Slash the defense budget.

6. End business subsidies.

7. End farm subsidies for agribusiness.

8. Begin a system of socialized medicine.

That's a good start. Another thing I like about the Democrats is that they don't make me sick by wearing American flag lapel pins.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Irony: The Republican Party wants change.....

...from a Republican White House in power for the past eight years!

That's what I call irony.

When Republicans say they want "change" they acknowledge that most Americans agree that the current Republican administration has been a failure.

Unfortunately, by advocating "change" the Republicans might do well in the next election. H. L. Mencken wrote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

By the same token, nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate.

 

[_Misty_]

We're at war, the economy is in turmoil, the country is in debt, gas has gone from $1 to $4 per gallon over the past 8 years. Those are things I think need to be addressed. I feel we need controlled change. If we have a Democrat controlled presidency to go along with a Democrat controlled Congress, which we have, I fear uncontrolled change. For that reason alone I think that McCain should be considered just to impose grid lock.

 

[The_Trouvere]

We're at war, the economy is in turmoil, the country is in debt, gas has gone from $1 to $4 per gallon over the past 8 years. Those are things I think need to be addressed. I feel we need controlled change. If we have a Democrat controlled presidency to go along with a Democrat controlled Congress, which we have, I fear uncontrolled change. For that reason alone I think that McCain should be considered just to impose grid lock.

With grid lock things won't get quite as bad quite as fast as they got during the last eight years. Nevertheless, things will get worse. John McSame is a clone of Bush.

 

[MeeMie]

...from a Republican White House in power for the past eight years!

That's what I call irony.

Nothing ironic about it. Every politician's mantra since the second election has been change.

The only funny thing about it is that Obama thought HE coined the word.

 

[commonfreeman]

The Republican party does need to change and go back to its fiscal consertive ways, less government and less government interference in the lives of individuals, which includes trying to push a "religious family values" agenda.

The democrats want change too, to socialism.

 

[pinkstarfish]

The Republican party does need to change and go back to its fiscal consertive ways, less government and less government interference in the lives of individuals, which includes trying to push a "religious family values" agenda.

The democrats want change to socialism.

Oh, I'm starting to get it.

Obama doesn't pray to God for pipelines. He doesn't try to fire every minor functionary who won't pledge allegiance to him. He doesn't preach about how others should live their lives while insisting that HIS privacy should be sacred. He doesn't try to ban books. He doesn't lie about his earmarks.

Perhaps he should start doing this stuff?

 

[commonfreeman]

Oh, I'm starting to get it.

Obama doesn't pray to God for pipelines. He doesn't try to fire every minor functionary who won't pledge allegiance to him. He doesn't preach about how others should live their lives while insisting that HIS privacy should be sacred. He doesn't try to ban books. He doesn't lie about his earmarks.

Perhaps he should start doing this stuff?

Obama just want to raise taxes, spend, spend, spend and create a host of fucked up agencies and programs that will produce more inefficiency,fraud and waste.

 

[pinkstarfish]

Obama just want to raise taxes, spend, spend, spend and create a host of fucked up agencies and programs that will produce more inefficiency,fraud and waste.

You know what has been a fraud and a waste? The last eight fucking years!

 

[firespin]

Oh, I'm starting to get it.

Obama doesn't pray to God for pipelines. He doesn't try to fire every minor functionary who won't pledge allegiance to him. He doesn't preach about how others should live their lives while insisting that HIS privacy should be sacred. He doesn't try to ban books. He doesn't lie about his earmarks.

Perhaps he should start doing this stuff?

He's doing fine by doubletalking about NAFTA, gun rights, public campaign financing, Iraq, nuclear power, and offshore drilling; taking personal monetary favors from now-convicted felons; getting federal money for the hospital that doubled his wife's salary; illegally using drugs; getting career help from people who damn and bomb America (and suing those who think he does that); and in general making promises he has no intention of keeping.

So he's doing fine already. Six of one, half dozen of another.

 

[islandman]

Then going into the booth and flipping a coin is as good a choice as any, if they're all the same. Right?

Ishmael

That's second only to which one has the hotter running mate.

 

[islandman]

Clearly, they are not the same.

Obama proposes nearly a trillion dollars in new spending and so far has accounted for only about 10% of its funding. Leaves much to be explained.

Clearly, the details show that they're both less about moving forward and more about moving sideways. Change isn't about moving sideways, yet both claim the mantle.

 

[commonfreeman]

You know what has been a fraud and a waste? The last eight fucking years!

Four more years, are you reciting your mantra, if you do it enough maybe Obama will just appear in front of you.

 

[Powertone]

1) A Democratic Party-controlled White House.


Pretty much sums it up, I think.

like kewl,dude...cumming in the sink will return once more! pussy cigar humidors,too!
control? there was control when Clinton was in The WH?
fuckin hilarious.

 

[Karen Kraft]

...from a Republican White House in power for the past eight years!

That's what I call irony.

Oh, to live in such a simple world; must be swell.

The "change" republicans are talking about is a change in the way Congress does business, i.e, party loyalty. The Bush Administration has let Congress get away with way too much. That is the change he seeks to make in Washington – no more party-loyal go-along-to-get-along business as usual.

On critically important issues, Senator John McCain has voted against many items the Bush Administration has supported and his own party has supported.

Rather than run off at the fingers, why not check out some facts?

Below you will find two links:

One is John McCain's "Votes Against Party" (total)

The second link show the Senators from the 110th Congress with their Vote-With-Party score.

Bill Clinton once said, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

When it comes to changing the way party politics affect our Congress, Senator Obama might add, "Change means what I tell you it means."

John McCain’s votes against party:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/against-party/


By contrast, here is a link to the 96% “party-loyal” Senators in the 110th Congress (see if you notice anything similar about them):

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/96/

 

[Powertone]

"Change" to republicans:

More nuclear power

More oil dependence

more? more what? nuclear? are you crazy? where are the nuke plants sprouting up? oh that's right...France.
oil dependence? how long has America been consuming oil? and you think it's a problem generated by Republicans?
whats your answer? NO DRILLING. OK...where do we get our oil? Oh...Saudi Arabia.
But blame Reps for the Donkey Stupid Dems who've REALLY set energy policy for 30 years and whom we can thank for their stupidity when they say: 'if we drill now it'll be 10 years blah blah blah..." Bill Clinton said the same thing 10 YEARS AGO...dumbass.

Just say NO to America's Energy needs...the unspoken cornerstone of the Democratic Party platform.

 

[77817]

Obama supporters. Talk about a bunch of glassy eyed cretins.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Clearly, the details show that they're both less about moving forward and more about moving sideways. Change isn't about moving sideways, yet both claim the mantle.

Oh, to live in such a simple world; must be swell.

The "change" republicans are talking about is a change in the way Congress does business, i.e, party loyalty. The Bush Administration has let Congress get away with way too much. That is the change he seeks to make in Washington – no more party-loyal go-along-to-get-along business as usual.

On critically important issues, Senator John McCain has voted against many items the Bush Administration has supported and his own party has supported.

Rather than run off at the fingers, why not check out some facts?

Below you will find two links:

One is John McCain's "Votes Against Party" (total)

The second link show the Senators from the 110th Congress with their Vote-With-Party score.

Bill Clinton once said, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

When it comes to changing the way party politics affect our Congress, Senator Obama might add, "Change means what I tell you it means."

John McCain’s votes against party:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/against-party/


By contrast, here is a link to the 96% “party-loyal” Senators in the 110th Congress (see if you notice anything similar about them):

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/96/