One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The difference betwen Democrats and Republicans
Page <<first <prev 23 of 32 next> last>>
Sep 7, 2013 06:10:47   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Flyinhoss wrote:
Pure as driven coal ? I like that, I like that a lot !
I believe it was Ike, a Republican that integrated the military. Have we started calling each other, "poo-poo brains" yet?


Not exactly in those words, if you get my drift. (LOL)

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 06:24:02   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Rhonda Minden wrote:
Wow do I resent that. Watch out for when those words fall back on ya!


Everyone know that, at the "Christian National Convention," Jesus voted to take God out of the party platform, and support abortion on demand and same sex marriage. That's why Democrats believe in Him. Oh yes, Jesus also voted for a 17 trillion dollar deficit, more than 10% real unemployment, and a single payer health care system. No wonder Democrats follow his teachings.
Give me a break. "Democrats follow the teachings of Jesus Christ" has to be one of the silliest statements I've read lately. Democrats, (just like Republicans) cherry pick Christ's teachings, follow the ones that are convenient, and ignore the rest.

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 06:39:18   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
Flyinhoss wrote:
I believe it was Ike, a Republican that integrated the military.

It was Harry Truman

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 06:51:56   #
cimiron
 
democrats are believers in communism, so no God and no Jesus Christ, however I believe that most republicans go along with the commies today, Democrats are not like years ago. imho, I think the constitution has been changed so much that it does not reflect what the forefathers meant it to be, and it should be up to the majority of the people to vote on any amendment made, we need to go back to principals Term Limits, fairtax, and several amendments that allow the government to make lifetime careers

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 07:51:10   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
cimiron wrote:
democrats are believers in communism, so no God and no Jesus Christ, however I believe that most republicans go along with the commies today, Democrats are not like years ago. imho, I think the constitution has been changed so much that it does not reflect what the forefathers meant it to be, and it should be up to the majority of the people to vote on any amendment made, we need to go back to principals Term Limits, fairtax, and several amendments that allow the government to make lifetime careers
democrats are believers in communism, so no God an... (show quote)


The Constitution hasn't been changed much, since its' inception...outside of Constitutional Amendments. Adding them is quite a process, and takes years to accomplish, with the indivdual states voting on any change. Many, if not most, attempts to amend it have failed because of the 2/3rds majority approval needed.

The Supreme Court may, by law, interpret and rule on any part of the Constitution as deemed necessary by a sitting Court. I sense that all sides of consitutional arguments are for "strict" interuptations of it, as long as it's their interpretation that's accepted. "Activist" justices are usually seen as such by the losing side of their interpretations.

"billhuggins" posted earlier on a forum as to how to get these things done. It is by following procedure as set forth by the forefathers of the Constitution. Mr. Huggins has it right. Anarchy is not the road to accomplishment...if you want to "strictly" enforce the Constitution.

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 08:03:27   #
4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory
 
dolly_t wrote:
Honestly there shoud be a third viable party that believes the way we do.It would be a lot better than we have now.
America change now or loose our freedom.


Sad and I hate to say it but a third party will keep demo's in power forever :thumbdown:

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 08:04:02   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Rhonda Minden wrote:
The greatest woman in our American government, hardest working, and most productive in her job was Condi Rice. I would be as comfortable as I could be if she ran for President- and won! Bengazi would not have happened under her watch.


Okay, I guess. But, did she not have some scandals associated with her.....especially at the beginning of the Iran UN investigations ????? Seems to me that she also had some dealings with Turkey that was not quite above board. I could be wrong, but wasn't there something about the purchase of uranium from Niger that led to the WMD link. Of course I could be wrong.

Reply
 
 
Sep 7, 2013 08:11:27   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
4430 wrote:
Sad and I hate to say it but a third party will keep demo's in power forever :thumbdown:


As opposed to what? Mealy mouthed RINOs who are far more interested in maintaining the status quo than in any meaningful reform. Remember when not the Republicans, but the RINOs were in charge for a little while in the ninities? They were not much better than the Democrats.

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 08:27:55   #
4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory
 
banjojack wrote:
As opposed to what? Mealy mouthed RINOs who are far more interested in maintaining the status quo than in any meaningful reform. Remember when not the Republicans, but the RINOs were in charge for a little while in the ninities? They were not much better than the Democrats.


Hey < as Uncle Si would say cut me some slack Jack < Uncle Si :-D I am getting up in yrs and it's that reason I forgot to include the Rinos !

Too bad that the Repubs let Rinos even run on the ticket

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 08:37:27   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
4430 wrote:
Hey < as Uncle Si would say cut me some slack Jack < Uncle Si :-D I am getting up in yrs and it's that reason I forgot to include the Rinos !

Too bad that the Repubs let Rinos even run on the ticket


Too bad real Republicans don't punch the RINOs tickets.

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 09:03:03   #
Ve'hoe
 
dolly_t wrote:
Honestly there shoud be a third viable party that believes the way we do.It would be a lot better than we have now.
America change now or loose our freedom.



I agree,,, but what it viable,,,, if the bar is what Dems and REpubs have set,,, it isn't a very high bar,,, I ask everyone here,,,, what party or platform would be WORSE than the idiots we have in power now???

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 09:11:32   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Ve'hoe wrote:
I agree,,, but what it viable,,,, if the bar is what Dems and REpubs have set,,, it isn't a very high bar,,, I ask everyone here,,,, what party or platform would be WORSE than the idiots we have in power now???


Al Queda?

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 09:36:17   #
bahmer
 
dolly_t wrote:
Honestly there shoud be a third viable party that believes the way we do.It would be a lot better than we have now.
America change now or loose our freedom.


Please use the "quote reply" tag at the bottom of the quote that you are replying to and that way we will all know as to who and what you are responding to. This makes it easier for all thank you.

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 15:59:59   #
faithistheword
 
cimiron wrote:
democrats are believers in communism, so no God and no Jesus Christ, however I believe that most republicans go along with the commies today, Democrats are not like years ago. imho, I think the constitution has been changed so much that it does not reflect what the forefathers meant it to be, and it should be up to the majority of the people to vote on any amendment made, we need to go back to principals Term Limits, fairtax, and several amendments that allow the government to make lifetime careers
democrats are believers in communism, so no God an... (show quote)







Actually, the constitution hasn't been changed--It's been IGNORED! This administration has its own constitution--The Communist Manifesto!

Reply
Sep 7, 2013 16:02:51   #
faithistheword
 
slatten49 wrote:
The Constitution hasn't been changed much, since its' inception...outside of Constitutional Amendments. Adding them is quite a process, and takes years to accomplish, with the indivdual states voting on any change. Many, if not most, attempts to amend it have failed because of the 2/3rds majority approval needed.

The Supreme Court may, by law, interpret and rule on any part of the Constitution as deemed necessary by a sitting Court. I sense that all sides of consitutional arguments are for "strict" interuptations of it, as long as it's their interpretation that's accepted. "Activist" justices are usually seen as such by the losing side of their interpretations.

"billhuggins" posted earlier on a forum as to how to get these things done. It is by following procedure as set forth by the forefathers of the Constitution. Mr. Huggins has it right. Anarchy is not the road to accomplishment...if you want to "strictly" enforce the Constitution.
The Constitution hasn't been changed much, since i... (show quote)





Anarchy worked once before--The Civil War! Sometimes, you just have to take the bull(sh-t) by the horns!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 23 of 32 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.