We are saved! Republicans control Senate
-
majorspark
Our founders held the same sentiments. When enough of them realized their government was incapable of change they banded together and well we know what happened. I am sure they never envisioned nor would advocate what our federal government has become. But we will continue to suffer while the evils are sufferable because we have some recourse. Even if it is the cost of just a little greater than or less than nothing. History proves that the only real radical change in government comes with the shedding of blood.ts1227;1671584 wrote:All we did was rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, and essentially move the sign that says "THIS IS WHERE GOVERNMENT GOES TO DIE" from between the 2 houses to between the houses and the White House.
DC went from accomplishing nothing to accomplishing less than nothing
Anyone that thinks a damn thing will change is a dumbass -
believer
truthmajorspark;1671738 wrote:History proves that the only real radical change in government comes with the shedding of blood. -
HitsRusHopefully, no one here feels that such a "radical" change in government that would require "bloodshed" is even remotely required, nor would such a radical change be "acceptable" to our founding fathers.
The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:...
Most certainly, today's situation fails to meet the criteria for 'bloodshed' or that even a radical change is necessary. While the "king" has usurped power issuing a flurry of executive orders as an end run around the duly elected legislative representatives of the people, it is not necessary to change governmewnt....only to change the "King"....and until that ability is lost, you cannot justify (to a candid world) a radical change that would cause incredible suffering amongst its people.IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted
to a candid world.
We have plenty of recourse, of which, the recent elections are but a first step.But we will continue to suffer while the evils are sufferable because we have some recourse. Even if it is the cost of just a little greater than or less than nothing.
This.Repubs and Dems may ultimately not be that different, but when they are completely polarized it's most likely because it's a bad idea. Good ideas/legislation have always found people willing to cross the aisle. -
SpockWhy is Pelosi stumping while introducing Boehner? STFU and move over. You don't have any power anymore.
-
rydawg5Obama sucks. Republicans would have gotten gas down to $1.65 and Unemployment to 5.8% instead.
-
QuakerOats
Yes --- 5 years ago. Instead we have had the WORST recovery in history, all because of the assault on capitalism and the taxpayers by this radical administration and the obama/pelosi/reid triumvirate.rydawg5;1693470 wrote:Obama sucks. Republicans would have gotten gas down to $1.65 and Unemployment to 5.8% instead. -
SpockIf I were in charge I would be very bipartisan but give the far left nothing they want. Make Obama sign everything or look bad to the moderates and independents. Then you have a larger voting base in 2016 that will vote conservative.
-
rydawg5
Dems & Repubs have nothing to do with this gas price drop so that isn't true.QuakerOats;1693485 wrote:Yes --- 5 years ago. Instead we have had the WORST recovery in history, all because of the assault on capitalism and the taxpayers by this radical administration and the obama/pelosi/reid triumvirate.
As far as unemployment rate, your opinion is that after the market tanked in 08', the republicans would have had it booming by 10' with their conservative approach.
Granted, in 2010 the higher taxes hadn't taken place on the people (that didn't happen until 2013)
What specifically would the republicans have done to speed up the process? -
like_that
Then why even bring it up?rydawg5;1693499 wrote:Dems & Repubs have nothing to do with this gas price drop so that isn't true.
As far as unemployment rate, your opinion is that after the market tanked in 08', the republicans would have had it booming by 10' with their conservative approach.
Granted, in 2010 the higher taxes hadn't taken place on the people (that didn't happen until 2013)
What specifically would the republicans have done to speed up the process? -
rydawg5
Here he comes to save the day..like_that;1693519 wrote:Then why even bring it up?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
majorsparkSpock;1693358 wrote:Why is Pelosi stumping while introducing Boehner? STFU and move over. You don't have any power anymore.
-
Spockthat photo should be a "caption this photo" thread.
-
like_that
Just trying to get an understanding of your logic there.rydawg5;1693529 wrote:Here he comes to save the day..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
rydawg5
In 2012 gas prices were a topic of debate for republicans. They said they would get them down to like $2 gallon.like_that;1693594 wrote:Just trying to get an understanding of your logic there.
As an independent I get annoyed that no one can ever concede that the other party isn't a complete mess at all times.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
majorspark
Exactly what I said above. That is why I included the same words you did from the declaration. "We have some recourse." Like I said history proves radical change comes with the shedding of blood. Those frustrated on either side that change ebbs and flows and moves slowly in one direction or another may not realize what the radical change they desire entails. If I thought we were beyond recourse I would not be on here commenting but acting. That is not near the case. Just making a point.HitsRus;1671819 wrote:Hopefully, no one here feels that such a "radical" change in government that would require "bloodshed" is even remotely required, nor would such a radical change be "acceptable" to our founding fathers.
The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:...
Most certainly, today's situation fails to meet the criteria for 'bloodshed' or that even a radical change is necessary. While the "king" has usurped power issuing a flurry of executive orders as an end run around the duly elected legislative representatives of the people, it is not necessary to change governmewnt....only to change the "King"....and until that ability is lost, you cannot justify (to a candid world) a radical change that would cause incredible suffering amongst its people.
We have plenty of recourse, of which, the recent elections are but a first step.
This.
One thing that causes a lot of turmoil is nationalizing every issue (especially the social ones). -
QuakerOatsrydawg5;1693499 wrote:Dems & Repubs have nothing to do with this gas price drop so that isn't true.
Indeed they do. In NY the democrats have now banned fracking. If the same type of liberals were in charge in Ohio and PA and North Dakota and Texas, gas, oil, and natural gas prices would all be substantially higher as these radicals would be putting our own resources off limits to the citizens of the nation. There is perhaps no starker differentiation that I can think of between the parties, at least when it comes to supplying the energy we all need at affordable prices. It is black and white; thank God for the repub's in control of most of the states. -
rydawg5Thank god you should watch Gasland the documentary.
What the Saudis are doing is 99% of the reason the gas prices are dropping.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
wkfan
FIFYrydawg5;1693689 wrote:Thank god you should watch Gasland the documentary.
What the Saudis are doing is 100% of the reason the gas prices are dropping.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
QuakerOatsrydawg5;1693689 wrote:Thank god you should watch Gasland the pure propaganda.
fify -
QuakerOatsrydawg5;1693689 wrote:
What the Saudis are doing is 99% of the reason the gas prices are dropping.
only part of the equation; they have simply decided to do nothing......neither cut production nor increase it.
"Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/12/the-basic-reason-oil-keeps-getting-cheaper-and-cheaper/ -
Dr Winston O'Boogie
This is mostly correct. Pols take credit when prices go down - you can bet the right wing lemmings would credit falling oil prices to great leadership were a repub in office currently. If you read about the history of the petroleum industry though, it is one of megatrends that current politicians have little to no influence upon. Of course if you see the entir world through the eyes of political fighting in Washington, you can never understand this.rydawg5;1693499 wrote:Dems & Repubs have nothing to do with this gas price drop so that isn't true. -
HitsRus
truth.they have simply decided to do nothing...... -
rydawg5How is contaminating people's water and disregarding people's health "propaganda"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
QuakerOatswater is not being contaminated ..... there are areas in the country (right around here also) that have naturally occurring methane in the water; it didn't come from anything having to do with fracking. We have been fracking wells for over 50 years; nearly 2 million wells, without incident ................. an unparalleled record of safety, for any industry.