Who should run for president on the GOP side? - Page 5
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: Who should run for president on the GOP side?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,948
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    What are you referring to?
    He "Stepped Down" (resigned his seat) as Speaker Of The House. He's just another of what I consider the "Gutless under pressure" of the Republican Party, a QUITTER.
    In America today, it's considered worse to judge evil than to do evil. Never let these Christophobic Liberal Progressive Purveyors of Infanticide & Homosexual Perversion who always manipulate truth to be hate speech set the terms in a debate.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    He "Stepped Down" (resigned his seat) as Speaker Of The House. He's just another of what I consider the "Gutless under pressure" of the Republican Party, a QUITTER.
    He quit his job because of a coup against him by Delay, Largent, Armey and others, and because he had become a liability to his party for reasons that have nothing to do with his qualifications as Pres. What he did was best for the party and surely not easy for him. Bothers me not in the least. Most people I know have quit something or other for legitimate reasons. I have quit a job before for reasons that are important to me but never considered myself a quitter because what I did was RIGHT.

  4. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    The American Presidency is the best that money can buy. You'll vote for whomever the people with the money "pick for you" to vote for. The only choice you have is to vote or not to vote. Good Luck.
    You got it right! It's a shame, but that is how it is, until a movement comes along that changes the selection process.

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by capo2186 View Post
    There should be no parties. It should be a group of people elected by the people, for the people. There should be no right and left, dem or rep, should just be what the people want. An issue comes up, we should vote on it. We need to go back to what this country was built on. Most American's seem to forget what exactly it means to be "American".
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    That is a pure democracy, which the founders wanted desperately to avoid. This is not at all what this country was built on. This leads to what the founders called tyranny of the majority where a very slim majority dominates the rest.

    You cannot eliminate parties, anymore than you can eliminate right or left.

    We are a representative democracy and the system works well when people particpate. The problem is that very few do. Can't cite the % of people who actually vote, much less how many really "get involved" but both percentages are WAY too low.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    I think you need to learn to read more than I need to review history. What did I say that is incorrect? I never said anything about the constitution at all, much less that it calls for parties.

    Go ahead, tell me that I or others are "banned" from forming a political party. Yeah, that really is American.
    More like South American (venezuela).

    The 2nd amendment is awesome. People on gun boards though sometimes forget the 1st is too.
    I assumed you were equating the lack of parties with 'pure democracy' and that is what I was referring to. In the future I'll try to figure out which part of your post you mean to be taken seriously.

    I remain convinced that the Constitution would be better served if political parties were ignored in our election process and that means banning them from our ballots. I don't care what voluntary associations you form, but when you start colluding to use those associations to subvert the power of government to other ends that is treason.
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,948
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    He quit his job because of a coup against him by Delay, Largent, Armey and others, and because he had become a liability to his party for reasons that have nothing to do with his qualifications as Pres. What he did was best for the party and surely not easy for him. Bothers me not in the least. Most people I know have quit something or other for legitimate reasons. I have quit a job before for reasons that are important to me but never considered myself a quitter because what I did was RIGHT.
    I'm aware of the circumstances, his party was screwing him over. However, he was the strength of the party and IMO he did the worse thing for the party by stepping down, not the best thing. The Democrats have to be dragged out of office kicking and screaming, regardless of their corruption, they never step down willingly under any amount of pressure. This shows strength any way you look at it. The Republicans step down if they're accused of picking their nose, without a fight, even when vindicated. I have no respect for a Quitter under those circumstances, it displays a weakness and disregard of commitement that I will not tolerate. That's just one reason I'm no longer a Republican. I've quit many a job too, but it was always for a better job paying more money, much different than being an elected official trusted by the people to stand firm in the face of scrutiny when you need them most. Such compromise, on every level, is what has gotten us here. Support him if you want to, it's your prerogative.
    In America today, it's considered worse to judge evil than to do evil. Never let these Christophobic Liberal Progressive Purveyors of Infanticide & Homosexual Perversion who always manipulate truth to be hate speech set the terms in a debate.

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    I assumed you were equating the lack of parties with 'pure democracy' and that is what I was referring to. In the future I'll try to figure out which part of your post you mean to be taken seriously.

    I remain convinced that the Constitution would be better served if political parties were ignored in our election process and that means banning them from our ballots. I don't care what voluntary associations you form, but when you start colluding to use those associations to subvert the power of government to other ends that is treason.
    Wrong again in your assumption. But we all know what you look like when you assume.

    So you don't care about my voluntary associations until you believe they are used to subvert the government. Then, you would ban them all? I believe any constitutionalist would agree this is a violation of the 1st amendment. What other rights of mine would you like to ban because someone somewhere is doing what you consider wrong? You cannot serve the constitution by ignoring it, just because you don't like what some people are doing. Somehow, I don't imagine you ever saying "i don't care if you use guns, but if you use those guns to hurt people, I would ban them for everyone"

    Obama ignores the constitution because in some cases he believes the country would be better off following what he believes. I assume you agree with his attitude, regardless of whether or not you believe in the particulars that he does.

    Rather than try to outlaw my rights, why not volunteer and start convincing people to only vote for people who are not members of a party?

  8. #47
    I guess you are purposely misunderstanding my position, but that's okay. I didn't advocate limiting your associations at all. I merely want to return the government to the plan the Founders had when they wrote the Constitution. Parties would have no part of the selection of a candidate in the Electoral College. The votes would be cast 1st for President and the 2nd place candidate would be Vice-President. The forming of Pres/VP tickets shouldn't be allowed to happen. The growth of party power in the US subverted some of the limitations placed upon government and placed that power in the hands of party hacks.
    I don't want to outlaw rights, I want to restore them.

    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    Wrong again in your assumption. But we all know what you look like when you assume.

    So you don't care about my voluntary associations until you believe they are used to subvert the government. Then, you would ban them all? I believe any constitutionalist would agree this is a violation of the 1st amendment. What other rights of mine would you like to ban because someone somewhere is doing what you consider wrong? You cannot serve the constitution by ignoring it, just because you don't like what some people are doing. Somehow, I don't imagine you ever saying "i don't care if you use guns, but if you use those guns to hurt people, I would ban them for everyone"

    Obama ignores the constitution because in some cases he believes the country would be better off following what he believes. I assume you agree with his attitude, regardless of whether or not you believe in the particulars that he does.

    Rather than try to outlaw my rights, why not volunteer and start convincing people to only vote for people who are not members of a party?
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    He's also a QUITTER.
    Unfortunately, you are 100% right! In fact, I think the whole Republican Party is comprised of a BUNCH OF gutless wonders.

  10. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    I guess you are purposely misunderstanding my position, but that's okay. I didn't advocate limiting your associations at all. I merely want to return the government to the plan the Founders had when they wrote the Constitution. Parties would have no part of the selection of a candidate in the Electoral College. The votes would be cast 1st for President and the 2nd place candidate would be Vice-President. The forming of Pres/VP tickets shouldn't be allowed to happen. The growth of party power in the US subverted some of the limitations placed upon government and placed that power in the hands of party hacks.
    I don't want to outlaw rights, I want to restore them.
    Nope, I am not misunderstanding your position, purposely or otherwise. I am taking you at your word. You advocate a true democracy "as issues come up we would vote on it". The founders did not want that. That is what they referred to as tyranny of the majority. They did not want, and in fact feared, 51% of the populace controlling the other 49%. You advocate this and I do not. Why you would think this is the founders intent, I do not know, but this is what you said.
    You also stated we would be better served if parties were "banned". Again, I believe that is unconstitutional and a violation of my rights. Don't be the person who says you want to restore rights while banning them. Be better than that.

    I agree that both parties have gone off the rail, make no mistake I am not defending what repubs did in the last 8 years or what dems have ever done. But unlike you I do not choose the path of outlawing them. I have chosen to work within the system to try to change it for the better.

    The constitution really has no say on party affiliation and the founders NEVER would have put that into the document. That is because the constitution has nothing to do with that part of the political process. It explains how the government is to run, their responsibilities, etc. It does not lay down rules for controlling how people may form parties or not because it let us be free to do so.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    He quit his job because of a coup against him by Delay, Largent, Armey and others, and because he had become a liability to his party for reasons that have nothing to do with his qualifications as Pres. What he did was best for the party and surely not easy for him. Bothers me not in the least. Most people I know have quit something or other for legitimate reasons. I have quit a job before for reasons that are important to me but never considered myself a quitter because what I did was RIGHT.
    Many people will say he quit. I say that he did what even G. Washington did. He took time to pray and regroup. He took time out to allow the political party to have time to think. Unfortunately they (the parties) did not rethink their views and find ourselves where we are today. I don't agree with everything he has done and he is not perfect he is fully human. Heck I don't agree with everything I have done in the past.
    So yes he is on my list of potential candidates.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 10:13 PM
  2. GOP: WV congressman's ouster referendum on Obama
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 09:22 AM
  3. Think 'SELF SUFFICIENCY', not 'SURVIVAL'...
    By AR Hammer in forum Survival Related
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 10:29 AM
  4. Pawlenty: GOP surge if health plan fails
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 08:10 AM
  5. Ken Blackwell reporting to Run for RNC
    By ricbak in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 03:21 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast