The GOP: The Stupid Party

I thought it was


G od's
O wn
P arty

 

Maybe it was at one time but lately God hasn't shown up to attend, maybe it's because those at the party were ignoring Him.

I liked the article , the way Ron Paul is able to quip back sort of reminds of the days of Ronald Reagan.

 

Ron Paul = Ronald Reagan? Let's not get carried away. I don't see anyone out there that is Reaganesque, despite trying to invoke his name every 4.7 seconds.

 

There he goes again.

 

The GOP-The Stupid Party? Did this guy ever make it out of the third grade. I suppose an appropriate response would be:

I know you are. I am rubber you are glue, what evere you say bounces off of me and sticks on you.

Or we could go with the good old classic: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

If there was a smiley doing a rasberry we could addd that to the list. Oh well. Boys will be boys.

 

Has somebody waylaid the real KenH, and is now impersonating him?

When I was last here at BB on a regular basis during the 2004 election season, KenH had nothing but the highest praise for Bush and the neocon Repubs, defending virtually their every move and statement.

I fear something has happened to the real KenH. Has anybody spoken with his family to make sure he is alive and well? Any information will be appreciated.

 

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice, and I believe that Ron Paul is BETTER than he was. Reagan stabbed conservatives in the back on several issues.

 

There is nothing wrong with Ken. He's learning to see past the hype and propaganda that most folks accept unquestioningly as reality, that's all. Alot of people are learning to do that these days. Don't be surprised to see more people with this ability here on BB as time goes by.

 

We didn't agree on much back in the day, but I'm glad you're OK and moving in the right direction. :thumbs:

Now please don't flip-flop on us again!

 

I won't touch the Paul is greater than Reagan baloney, but as far as the conservatives being stabbed in the back on issues by Reagan, I have to ask: Such as?

 

Granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Which of course meant more crime, more welfare freeloaders and an increased threat to national security.

Raised taxes

Supported the Brady Bill

Supported the so-called Assault Weapons Ban

Helped finance and arm Saddam Hussein

Forced adult-only apartment/condo complexes to accept families with children, in violation of the constitutional right of free association. I personally know of multiple apartment and condo complexes that experienced an immediate surge of vandalism and break-ins by youths after Reagan signed this bill into law.

Nominated liberal pro-abort O'Connor to the Supreme Court, thus ensuring a pro-death majority that would sustain Roe v. Wade.

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head!

 

The immigration bill he signed and the tax bill he signed were products of a dem congress. (The immigration bill, if enforced, could at least be a step in the right direction. Why pass another one if it's not going to be enforced?) Remember that in his 1st admin, taxes were lowered. His "support" of the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban (how is this anti-conservative?) was token support, mostly photo-op stuff the Clintons arranged. I agree about O'Connor being in hindsight a poor nominee, though not nearly as bad as Bush 41 and Clinton. (Will Bush 43 get praise for his nominees?) Reagan did appoint Scalia and Kennedy, and I'd think the former ought to at least get Reagan high marks.

I don't know about the apartment issue so I can't comment.

I'm no "St. Reagan" type. However, he's been the best the GOP has had in the Oval in some time. And, with the caveat that I still may wind up a Paul supporter, do you think Paul wouldn't alienate Christian conservatives with his lax marijuana approach, recent nod to universal healthcare, etc.? We can play this game all day long. I think the Paul hysteria over his tweaking Rudy's nose is just getting to people's heads.

One thing I think we can all agree on: the GOP needs to return to its roots. Paul may be a wink and a nod in that direction.

 

Yep, yep. Pretty much a stab in the back to conservatives, no matter how some people want to justify it. Yep. A veto worked just as well back in 1986 with a Democratic Congress as it would work today. Yep.

Good article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

 

No one's saying he couldn'tve vetoed. However, what good is a veto when the override votes are there? Presidents tend to be reticent about it anyway. That's no justification, btw. It's just a contributing factor.

I say again: enforce the laws.
Yep yep :thumbs: