RINOs

[Deleted]

One of my favorite TV shows is "Newsroom" on HBO Sunday nights. Last night there was a fairly substantial amount of time devoted to RINOs, what they stand for and how they compare to other Republicans and Tea Partiers. It was an excellent explanation given by a non TPer but a Repurblican and it pretty much described the TP to a "T". As I've mentioned here many times, I'm not a TPer and by and large disagree with many of their stances. I AM a person who leans to the Republican side although I prefer to think of myself as an Independent as I have the ability to think for myself and not be blindly led by any political party or faction. The more I read about the TP and the Grover Norquist (sp?) of the GOP, the less I like the GOP if in fact that is the way they are going. I'll never be a Democrat, but...

[boxcar]

You don't care for the Tea Party? Then I offer you the basic GOP. Talk about your dirty politics.



>>Govenor LePage issued a statement saying that instead of attending the Monday-Thursday convention, he'll focus on state business and spending time with his family.

The governor's decision came as the Republican National Convention's credentials committee determined that the election of 20 delegates supporting the libertarian-leaning Ron Paul violated party and parliamentary rules. In doing so, the committee assigned 10 of the delegates to mainstream state GOP members who challenged the Paul delegates' election and support presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

On Friday, LePage followed through on his promise this month not to attend the Tampa gathering unless the delegation elected during a raucous state convention in May is seated.<<



Read more on Newsmax.com: Maine Gov. Pulls Out of Convention in Protest Over Delegate Purge

I take this as a GOP effort to silence Ron Paul.

[jerryfmcompushaft]

If only there were a party that actually followed the principles voiced by the GOP - Small government, lower taxes, balanced budget, reduced debt. It would require reduced benefits and the closing of many government programs, but I contend that many government programs could be closed with no one even noticing (except the bureaucrats who work in those programs).

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2012 14:42:50 GMT -5 jerryfmcompushaft said:

If only there were a party that actually followed the principles voiced by the GOP - Small government, lower taxes, balanced budget, reduced debt. It would require reduced benefits and the closing of many government programs, but I contend that many government programs could be closed with no one even noticing (except the bureaucrats who work in those programs).

Watch out, Jerry! With an attitude like that you'll be lumped in with the likes of people like me!

[Deleted]

"You don't care for the Tea Party? Then I offer you the basic GOP. Talk about your dirty politics."

Do you honestly think that any other "party" would do differently? If the TP was in charge, certainly they would do the same to someone who disagreed with them. It's called politics.

I liked the concept of what the TP came out with originally. I HATE the inflexibility they voice now. They are no different in that respect than those on the far left.

[boxcar]

D>>Do you honestly think that any other "party" would do differently?<<

Well yes, I do, Denny. The role of the electors and the procedures are clearly defined in Article II of the Constitution. I think the parties should follow the rules, rather than trying to subvert them.

[Deleted]

D>>Do you honestly think that any other "party" would do differently?<<

Well yes, I do, Denny. The role of the electors and the procedures are clearly defined in Article II of the Constitution. I think the parties should follow the rules, rather than trying to subvert them.

I agree with you but what makes you think that the GOP does and the Dems don't? They're POLITICIANS!!!!! Unfortunately - ore fortunately as the case may be - people have a tendency to interpret the consitituion to fit their needs. As I've stated numerous times, the Constitution was written for the times and for the future, but not for 300 years later. I'm amazed at how much of it is still appropriate for today. It just shows what vision they had when it was drafted.

[boxcar]

D>>I agree with you but what makes you think that the GOP does and the Dems don't?<<

In case you missed it, I was showing an example where the GOP can be just as bad or worse than the Dems.

D>>people have a tendency to interpret the constitution to fit their needs.<<

“Interpret”? I’d say twist words to fit their desires. Or try to instill false meaning such as “Separation of Church and State”. And then there are those who would call the Constitution a living document. And they would explain to the ignorant masses just what it really means.

D>>As I've stated numerous times, the Constitution was written for the times and for the future, but not for 300 years later. <<

First of all it is just over 200 years, not 300. If it seems to be out of date for some or an area was not covered, that is where amendments would come into play. If the Constitution has any flaws it is in an amendment here and there, such as the Commerce clause. Were that not there, we could more easily limit big government.

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2012 21:10:34 GMT -5 boxcar said:

D>>I agree with you but what makes you think that the GOP does and the Dems don't?<<

In case you missed it, I was showing an example where the GOP can be just as bad or worse than the Dems. I got it.

D>>people have a tendency to interpret the constitution to fit their needs.<< And your point is?

“Interpret”? I’d say twist words to fit their desires. Or try to instill false meaning such as “Separation of Church and State”. And then there are those who would call the Constitution a living document. And they would explain to the ignorant masses just what it really means. PotAto, PotAHto.

D>>As I've stated numerous times, the Constitution was written for the times and for the future, but not for 300 years later. <<

First of all it is just over 200 years, not 300. I fat fingered it, sorry. If it seems to be out of date for some or an area was not covered, that is where amendments would come into play. If the Constitution has any flaws it is in an amendment here and there, such as the Commerce clause. Were that not there, we could more easily limit big government.

The Constitution probably had flaws when it was written as no one would ever totally agree with a document they couldn't understand. As for the amendments, you had better believe that is where much of the disagreement will lie. They are what helps make the Constitution itself fluid and -when they are written - current. If one were to consider the Constitution - WiTHOUT amendments - as the entire Constitution, then I would agree we should follow the precepts it lays out. But, the amendents ARE part of it and thus the changes that have been made are a direct result of trying to keep up with the times, so to speak.

[boxcar]

D>>But, the [amendents] ARE part of it and thus the changes that have been made are a direct result of trying to keep up with the times<<

The amendments mostly vectored in a different direction and covered topics that were not addressed in the original Constitution. One notable exception to that is the tenth amendment, which granted power to the states that the Constitution did not give to the Federal government. Put another way, it tried to limit the powers of the Federal.

D>>The Constitution probably had flaws when it was written as no one would ever totally agree with a document they couldn't understand.<<

Are you saying that the framers of the Constitution did not understand what they wrote?
They were not all Democrats. (The Constitution was not written like Obamacare was)