Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
Fine, I'll bite.

Is this any different from what any opposition party does when it's in the opposition? It's not.
I don't recall any Democrat Senator (or leadership) making a statement like that the day after a Republican President was elected.

Is this any different from what any opposition party does when it's in the opposition? It's not.
It's different because of the numbers of filibusters used, and needing a super majority. And keeping one rep. as a seat warmer so technically they're "in session" and no out-of-session appointments can be made.

Eh? I mean, I'm sure it's possibly happened, but is this some kind of regular thing not explainable by long/medium-term shifts in views?
What's the last bill senate passed? How many are waiting? This is gridlock and weekly budget band-aids. Remember the credit ceiling debacle.

While I think pledging to be inflexible isn't smart, I don't think the mere act of making a pledge is some kind of problem. Every politician makes pledges.
Name another one with the kind of affect Norquist's has had....a written manifesto with signatures.

This seems a bit silly for you to have beef with, considering the front-runner is a Mormon.
It's not silly at all--to criticize the GOP leadership catering to Christian Fundamentals first. As was done during/after Values Voter summit, and their base claiming Mormons aren't Christians.

This election seems pretty distant from social conservatism and religion. I think that's a good thing.
I see it as an extension of the 2010 election results, immediately followed by bills to limit abortion, de-fund Planned Parenthood, keep DOMA and DADT.

Fair point, but most states are basically unable to say no to federal funding.
Then they shouldn't portray a false picture of condemning federal funds, while accepting them (even to balance a state budget--Texas).

Positively not what is being argued.
Right, I forgot, they also want to get rid of Regulations, including anything to reign in banks/financial industry. Even tonight's debate was more of the same: cut taxes, de-regulate, jobs will appear, wealth will trickle down. Where are the specifics, as in Education, Jobs Training, Infrastructure re-building, when they want to scrap federal funding for those things?

The idea that high taxes are patriotic is pure sophistry. And the idea that we should be arguing about the Iraq and Afghani war now, and that they are uniquely Republican issues, is also a bit meh. Both parties voted for both wars.
When was the last time the US cut taxes during War? It was a bad idea, during two Wars, and exacerbated the deficit. The longest deployment in our history isn't a "meh", especially when it's cost us billions (trillions counting wounded vets and long-term healthcare). Ron Paul is the only Republican who's been consistent about being non-interventionalist, not nation building, and bringing our troops home.

This is politics, right?
Yeah, politics as usual. It's safe to say people are sick of it, and want/expect better.

Agreed


Reagan also saw inequities in our tax structure that benefited the very wealthy, and wanted that changed.

I think you're projecting.
No, I'm going by what's frequently in the news. Remember the Tea Party protests with signs depicting President Obama as a witch doctor with a bone in his nose, or a Hitler mustache, and all those SSSocialism accusations? There's a distinct group of Republicans who claim Democrats are Socialists, or want to turn the US into a Socialist state, or become "like Socialist Europe".


(icky format, Dread)