Do House Republicans Know What 'Unity' Means?

Look how their candidates have been nipping at each other. Is that unity?

Well, that campaign stuff is normal but Congress saying they want to "highlight start differences" are certainly not looking to get any work done at all in 2012. Perhaps they meant they were going to "unify" within their own party. Even worse still for people that WE pay to pass laws for OUR country.

click in brain: the intended result is not less government, but less effective government available to the other side.

As always on Gather, a left-leaning blogger wails at the moon about how the evil Republicans should drop their principles and go along with the Minority Democrats. My question as always is "Why doesn't any writer wail that the Minority party Democratic members should sacrifice their principles and go along with the Majority party Republicans?" After all the Republicans are in the Majority!

After all the Republicans are in the Majority!

But the Republicans are also in the wrong. Just because there's more of them doesn't make their ideals right.

Are you saying the belief that the other party is "wrong" is a valid reason for not sacrificing your principles and therefore a valid reason for dis-unity?

It is kind of funny, Eric. When the Republicans were the minority, they were blamed for 'not getting anything done'. Now they are the Majority, and it is still their fault 'nothing is getting done'.

Perhaps they meant they were going to "unify" within their own party.....isn't that what the Dems are doing?

Face it, Lora. You aren't willing to "unify" with Republicans unless they do things your way.

Are you saying the belief that the other party is "wrong" is a valid reason for not sacrificing your principles and therefore a valid reason for dis-unity?

Not at all. Each side is "wrong" to the other. Each side needs to make concessions to reach a point of compromise and unify enough to get sensible legislation passed. The Republicans aren't budging because they think that if they stand their ground in Congress, it hurts Obama. Like I said, behaving like babies.

The GOP, making sure millions have no job, to put one man out of a job....

Unity means going along with more big government policies. Right?

Unity means working together to do what you're getting paid to do. Not cackle like a bunch of hens.

Where were all the calls for unity during the first two years of this presidents term?

Oh wait, now I remember. The democrats rammed thru partisan legislation with no consideration of unity. That is the democrats idea of unity, don't ask questions and do it their way.

Hard to include anyone when all they have to add to the discussion is NO!

Congress doesn't want to be adult and do their job.

If Congress really were to act like adults, you probably would not like it. They would be forced to make the hard decisions and acting like true adults would be very unpopular.

It's not a popularity contest. Well, unless they are running for re-election. That needs to change. If there were term-limits, they would be more likely to do what's "right."

... and yet you would not support a member of congress or a president that made hard and unpopular decisions. As you stated above, the Republicans are "wrong" which can only mean they are presenting options that you would find unpopular.
You can't have it both ways, either you want unpopular decisions by Republicans or you want unity behind the Democrats platform.

The Republicans are wrong on who they want to tax. This "class warfare" started with Bush Jr. not with Obama. Americans are just slow to catch up it. Obama was talking about the class warfare and the 99% back in 2006 when he was a Senator. Who was President during that time?

I support a few Republican ideas - one being a flat tax.

I do not support this notion that eliminating tax on the greediest, upper income Americans is going to somehow help this country. It's not.
Nor do I support privatizing social security or cutting benefits to Medicare and poor citizens.
I would support a ban on late-term abortion. I will never support any legislation that tries to make abortion illegal.

Republicans are WRONG when they want to take a way a woman's rights to her own body. They are WRONG to continue to tax the middle class to death and insist on allowing WallStreet millionaires like Mitt Romney to sit on their ass and collect millions of tax free dollars.

Over the last three years, the Dems have taken a drowning economy and held it's head under water. Yes, Bush, started the fire, but Obama and the Dems through dried pine needles and gas on the fire.

Big government is an economy killer. Why would the Republicans want to partake in more big government?

IMHO FDR started the fire of rampant spending and the Clinton's started the fire of rampant dis-unity. The LMSM supports the destructive behavior and pours fuel on both concepts so there is another level of complicity and toxicity.

You know, I wasn't even politically active until I was forced to watch that giant gas bag Newt on TV each night, insulting progressives, and many times, me, an Independent social liberal, fiscal conservative, until I decided to fight. The idea Clinton started the divisive tactics is moronic, Newt did that, to unify conservatives.

You can't tell these people that Clinton did anything good. I guess the same way I don't believe Bush Jr. did one single good thing in 8 years.

Eric is right, though, we are fed, all of us, two different versions of reality, from different outlets of the Corporate media, dedicated to just that, each day, and the point is division, for easier subjugation. No one can afford not to fact check anything they read or hear, if they want to be operating in reality.

I'm not sure that when we "fact check" we are necessarily getting the correct information. You almost have to spend your day reading conservative sources and liberal sources on the same topic and fleshing out maybe one or two points that are consistent -- and assume that is the "truth."
It's very frustrating.

I do, Lora, many days, for just that reason, I'm retired, though.

Republicans refuse to work with Democrats? Why not phrase it to say Democrats refuse to work with Republicans?
As far as the high debt, what works best borrowing more and creating debt, or spending within your means?
I am not owned by the government. I should be able to keep what I earn without the threat of jail if I do not allow them to steal from me in the form of taxes.

This president has done more to create disunity than any before him.

what works best borrowing more and creating debt, or spending within your means

It was a Democrat that balanced the budget and implemented Paygo to keep the government within their means. It was a Republican who ended that and started racking up debt.

I should be able to keep what I earn without the threat of jail if I do not allow them to steal from me in the form of taxes.

You need to pay to be able to live in a society that allows you to earn your money in the profession you chose. You get police protection, public schools, libraries, fire department, military protection from foreign threats -- that stuff doesn't come free. Everyone should pay a FAIR amount of taxes.

lora,
"It was a Democrat that balanced the budget and implemented Paygo to keep the government within their means."
wow - paygo - bush was a democrat??? i did not know that lol.
it was part of the omnibus budget in 1990.
i can only think you are referencing clinton - he didnt serve till 93. so no way he 'implemented it'.
it terms of having a balanced budget - as he always claimed he had -
explain to be exactly how a budget surplus, would include increasing the federal debt from 4.4 trillion to 5.8 trillion (during hius tenure.).
that is a 30% increase in the debt.
before you worry your little brain - let me explain.
as many others did - he raided 2 trust funds - social security and medicare - and claimed them twice - once as receipts into the trusts, and again as revenue to the federal budget. of course he then had to have debt issued to cover the iou to the trusts.
that would be like you borrowing your annual shortfall to meet expenses, and counting the loan proceeds as income - it is a lie.
the other little 'trick' (lie) used, was moving a huge chunk of annual expenses "off budget".
now - i am not picking on clinton - he was not the first nor the last to do these things, and democrats were not the only party that did it.
but to give credit to him for something that is a lie is just wrong.
so far in this comment - you are only 3 truthful facts away from a hat trick!

oh - forgot this "police protection, public schools, libraries, fire department, military protection from foreign threats "

you do realise that only one of those are under the federal government - which is the particular segment of government you are discussing.
so exactly what do city, county, and state cops, fireman, teachers, and librarains have to do with any of your rost?
or did you simply need a long list ofr services.........
and before you start in about the additional funding that fed "gives" the entities - if they got their noses out of running them, and let the locals make their own decisions (as it is supposed to be), there would be a huge decrease in the taxes that pay for it all.

Nobody complains about those things, Lora...it's the rubbish that the American People take issue with. You're well-aware of that.

Del - you are so misinformed.
you do realise that only one of those are under the federal government - which is the particular segment of government you are discussing
My response was to Mark H.'s comment:
I should be able to keep what I earn without the threat of jail if I do not allow them to steal from me in the form of taxes.

He said he wanted to keep the money he makes -- I assume that meant he didn't want to pay local, state or federal taxes. And, yes, I am aware that my list was a combined list.

Perhaps you should respond to ONLY comments that pertain to you and your own comments. Feel free to respond to this one.

and "government" in Mark H.'s comment also can include, federal, state or local --- if he had specified "federal government", I'd be happy to include a list of federally sponsored privileges that he might enjoy courtesy of our federal government.

Mark-John -- taxes are a necessary evil of a democratic society. If nobody paid taxes, how would the government function?
It's simply ridiculous to say "I earned my money so I get to keep it all."

No federally sponsored "privilege" is given without first stealing from those that make money. Government takes from you to give to me. I am therefore stealing from you.

Frank Chodorov stated "The citizen is sovereign only when he can retain and enjoy the fruits of his labor. If the government has first claim on his property he must learn to genuflect (kneel) before it. When the right of property is abrogated, all the other rights of the individual are undermined, and to speak of the sovereign citizen who has no absolute right of property is to talk nonsense. It is like saying that the slave is free because he is allowed to do anything he wants to do (even vote, if you wish) except to own what he produces.

The federal government did quite well before the income tax and the formation of the Nanny State. Tariffs were the largest form of income before the looting of the citizens became popular with the vermin in D.C.
I think it is ridiculous to be a slave to the political class.

You have yet to answer the initial question of why it is the republicans that must work with the democrats and not the democrats working with the republicans. It is never asked why don't they work for Amerika.
I like neither party, but find it amusing that it is a one sided way of looking at things.

Lora, a non-sequitor? Oh, come now...you're a little sharper than that.

Don't ever put words in my mouth; I don't appreciate it at all.

lora,
you are 4 cakes short of an ihop stack.
mark said nothing about any particular government entity he responded to your whining about a lack of unity at the federal level.
you decided that your incrediblke intelligence allowed you to read his mind and that it would include all the other entities.
and if you would like, i would be happy to offer a very long list of re-dundant, and un-needed federal agencies, that deo nothing other than to tax us, and subvert states right.
as too unity between parties - most administrations, and this one in particular has a very strange concept of co-operation - to them it is defined as - co-operate and give me what i want - same as saying to communicate means for the other side to sit down shut up and listen, while i communicate what you will believe.
and perhaps you should realise, that with our country on the verge of 'fundalmentally changing' into a bbb rated, socialist ecomomy - redicules propoganda does indeed pertain to me.
but feel free to be deluded right up till, and after, you have no choices you are permitted to make on your own.

Precisely what I was getting at, Del.

I mention the incredible amounts of rubbish that Big Gov wastes our money on, and she uses Alinsky's favourite tactic, CLAIMS THAT I'VE SAID WE SHOULD PAY NOTHING IN TAXES, and speaks of Police, Fire, and Military...

Lora, not one more time. Address $16 doughnuts at Leftist morning meetings, a 3:1 Bureaucrat-to-Student ratio, scores of UNNECESSARY 'CZARS,' and a Million other wasteful behaviours...not the essential and accepted Services that I've said nothing about a'tall....

it is the progressive way - many do not realise what they want to 'progress' into.

lora,
then be fair - mark h did not say there should be zero taxes.
" threat of jail if I do not allow them to steal from me in the form of taxes.""
any rational person would realize, that part of taxes are stealing - and a part are needed e.g military.
some taxes are paid willingly, which is a contribution - others are taken againsty our will - those are stealing.
anyone knows that - so dont presume anyone that disagrees with you is a total moron.

Try running this country on voluntary contributions, lol.

Maybe Del can support the entire Military -- he and Mark H.
Since they think that the U.S. military is the only thing taxes should pay for. Oops, did I use the word "think" and mention two right-wing nuts in the same sentence. My bad.

Tariffs were the largest form of income before the looting of the citizens became popular with the vermin in D.C.

I'm just guessing, Mark, but from your comments (property rights), you sound like a Paul supporter, and if so, how do you implement tariffs and operate free trade at the same time? Just asking, mind you

I do not know where you got that from my comments Lara. When one reverts to calling people nuts and other names it means you have no defense for your stance. Perhaps you will, FINALLY, tell me why republicans MUST work with Democrats and not the other way around. Or here is a thought, working for the benefit of the country as a whole?

Ron, so called free trade has not worked as it is not FAIR trade. Do you really like buying Chinese products? They, the Chinese have tariffs on all American products.

Oh yeah, Ron. The tax code is voluntary. You pay, or you voluntarily go to jail, unless you are of the political class.

Or you could find some pacific island where no one cares whether you contribute to society at all. If you want to live here, you have to pay taxes here, its the reality of responsible society, you vote and cast your ballots fo the representation you want, and that representative government sets the taxes, just like everybody else, and no, I hate the Chinese crap, and think that any company that off shores a job should be banned from selling their products here, if I had my way.

I just thought with your property rights shtick, which is a big Paul thing, you might have been a Paulite, no big deal.

Lora, I was wondering if you could link some examples on "unity" from the 2009-2010 session of Congress. The Democrats shut the Republicans out of basically all negotiations on major legislation, and then complained when they couldn't get any votes from the GOP. I seem to recall their unifying rally cry as being "We won, get over it".

Here's a link of something that stands out to me from 2009. A Republican showing the utmost disrespect for our President. I cannot imagine a Democrat behaving so child-like toward a sitting President.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-10/politics/obama.heckled.speech_1_illegal-immigrants-illegal-aliens-rep-joe-wilson?_s=PM:POLITICS

150 House bills were proposed by the 111th Congress as opposed to 62 by the 112th.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=PublicLaws&c=111

Just looking at the numbers, it would appear that the previous Congress was getting more done which would imply that there was more unity.

"Just looking at the numbers, it would appear that the previous Congress was getting more done which would imply that there was more unity."

Or maybe it reflects a Democrat party that held majorities in both chambers, and railroaded legislation through regardless of what popular opinion said (they paid dearly for it in 2010). How can the Democrats expect unity when they have no understanding of the term themselves.

Could not have done it without Republican help, Eamon, if I remember right, or was there a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and I just forgot about it? What they paid dearly for was a disenchanted Democratic and Independent supporter base, upset that Obama had not done much of what he promised, that stayed home, in a lot of cases, in 2010, while Republicans were highly motivated and voted in huge numbers. Don't worry, Obama's base has been kicking themselves in the ass every since, and it will not happen again in 2012. I do not think Obama will get the youth vote this time around, though, so it should be interesting...

I'm hoping that youth vote will turn and come out for Ron Paul.

The more Democrats and Republicans disagree the better off our country is for the most part. When they can't agree it less likely for them to pass bills that take a way more of our freedoms and more of our money. Republicans basically gave Obama and the rest of the Democrats a blank check when they agreed to raise the debt limit. I don't see any reason for the Democrats to complain they are getting pretty much everything they have been asking for. We just aren't seeing the econmic growth and the jobs that are suppose to come with their spending spree.

The debt ceiling was raised for Reagan 18 times.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/reagan-debt-ceiling

Voted 19 times on the debt ceiling for Bush. 7 times it was raised.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/14/158424/republican-leaders-debt-limit-hypocrisy/?mobile=nc

Raised on 3 times under Obama.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/barack-obama/obama-says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/

3 times under obama really ? lololololololol
i remember them raising it 3 times just last year - tho they were 'temporary increases not permanent so politifact woudl not count that (of course).
yes bush raise3d the debt about 4.5 trillion in 8 years to almost 10trillion.
obama just asked for a new ceiling of 16.3 trillion - a 6trillion increase in less than 3 1/2 years - at that rate, if obama gets another term the debt will be about 25 trillion when he leaves office.
you really nheed to read something that isnt funded by soros - heck even cnn gives more truth than your references - worse than listening only to fox.
try a mixture msnbc, cnn, fox - then do some of your own research on the government websites, to find that the truth is always in between what the two sides claim.

the truth is always in between what the two sides claim.

Agreed.

The fact is that every President raises the debt ceiling.

It sounds really dumb to me too when I hear Newt Gingrich calling himself a "Reagan Conservative." Reagan raised taxes, grew the federal government and spending averaged over 22% of GDP.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

Your point is taken Lora. Both parties have allowed debt celing raises. But that is no reason to keep doing it. I am disappointed that the Republicans could have stopped the debt ceiling raise but didn't. They caved into the demands of the Democrats. So I still don't see why the Democrats should be claiming that the Republicans are the reason for a "do nothing congress". They have allowed more spending by this administraiton than any other.

lora,
ah - the progressive way - when you make false statements, and are proven wrong - bring up a different topic, and say - 'well what about what this guy did!' which is basically the 'i know you are but what am i' peewee defense.
i did not bring up reagan.
i responded to the moronic comment, that you have believed hook line and sinker, that a democrat president started paygo, and also balanced the budget!
both are lies!

"There she goes again!

really lora?
i am an idiot?
then please explain there are only 3 increases in the debt ceiling under obama, when it was increased at least 3 times under temporary budget bills just in the last year, and several times before that?
is that the same math method obama used when he claimed he saved employers 3000% on insurance costs?
and you still have not answered how a democrat started paygo when it was passed under ghwb, or how a budget was balqanced yet debt went up by 33%.
the only reason i can not prove (to you) that you are wrong - is that your mind is like a steel trap - rusted shut. anyone else reading this knows how wrong you are.
nothing gets in or out - which i am sure makes you feel good, since you can think in your own delusional world of what facts are.

ah - the progressive way - when you make false statements, and are proven wrong - bring up a different topic, and say - 'well what about what this guy did!' which is basically the 'i know you are but what am i' peewee defense.

Or you can do it the conservative way, and claim the other guy started it all when someone returns your insults, never mind time stamped comments, find some lame video clip, that doesn't in any way prove what you claimed in the first place, and stomp off and pout claiming (despite the time stamped comments) that the other guy was an insulting idiot, and you never did anything wrong, ever. Seems to work for some....

yes bush raise3d the debt about 4.5 trillion in 8 years to almost 10trillion. obama just asked for a new ceiling of 16.3 trillion - a 6trillion increase in less than 3 1/2 years - at that rate, if obama gets another term the debt will be about 25 trillion when he leaves office.

You cant blow up the economy, and then point fingers at the other guy, as unemployment and other costs associated with your actions, such as food stamps and medicaid go through the roof, while tax receipts fall though the floor, and you institute recurring costs that Obama had nothing to do with, Del. Not to mention you forget, apparently, the 2009 budget, minus the spending for the stimulus, etc, that Obama added, was a Bush budget. The truth is, Obama is not a spendthrift, and the pertinent facts and figures from the CBO show it to be a much different matter

Or should I say less of one than you are interested in portraying him as, very few are not spendthrifts, to one extent or another....

Careful with the criticism of Del, Lora...you've just spelled "bonafide" "bonafied." ;)

So, then, are you really going with the current Scofflaw-In-Chief, Lora?

well excuse me lora - the last 20 years, i had a person like you to do all my typing - all i had to do was verbally dictate.
and i learned to type in forums and chatrooms.
never had a reason to know how before - and with my extreme arthritis, i constantly hit wrong keys, double kerys, etc and have no real need or reason to go back and correct it all.
as it has been proven repeatedly, anyone withn a functioning brain can understand the meanings in spit of it.
now answer the questions and stop diverting/attacking/name calling.

well ron - while bush the idiot was in office for that last budget of his term - the opposite party controlled both houses.
they also controlled both the first 2 years of pobamas term, and couldnt seem to pass a budget at all other than stop-gap temporary ones.
so - are you going to answer the questions i presented to lora ron?

and ron - note i did not respond to the attempted snipe.
you are right about some claiming another started it, in spite of time stamped comments - have seen you do that - and some post insults, then remove them - glad i learned how to do a screen shot, before they were scrubbed.

Well, Del, No, Bush was not in office for that last budget, he was out of office, that's how it works, though I know you folks would love to bury that fact. The worst, by far, year under Obama was the Last Bush budget (2009), the big ticket in that budget was the bailout, and that was a Bush initiative, too big to fail, and all that, no problem, and the reason they couldn't pass a budget under Obama, was the party of NO, well, that and a bunch of blue dogs, Republicans in Dem clothing, but that doesn't matter too much, the money got spent, anyway. As for deleted comments, I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about, but you were the one that mouthed off first on the article I was talking about, and then blamed me. I deleted nothing, and don't, generally, unless I go to correct a spelling problem and lose it, which has happened once or twice. Personally, your whole attitude is arrogant, so you should expect it back, get over it, anyway, and stop whining when you do. I wasn't involved in your conversation with Laura, other than to point out your hypocrisy, and correct your attribution of deficits, and I am not a big Obama fan myself, but which question is it you want answered?

And that wasn't an attempted snipe, Del, it was a snipe you certainly deserved.

As a guy typing on a keyboard that is missing six keys, and has others that do not work, Lora, I too would not condone the ridicule of spelling and punctuation, though. Anything approaching the English language from me is merely coincidental.

Just for the record, any comment you post, no matter whether you delete it, or not, can still be seen by Gather TOS, and anyone else that knows how to pull them up, so deleting anything has very little purpose, once you put it out there, anyway, in case you didn't know that, Del

I do know how, by the way ;o)

ron - your words that you now dispute?
"Not to mention you forget, apparently, the 2009 budget, minus the spending for the stimulus, etc, that Obama added, was a Bush budget. "

loraq - of course you would probably never personally type my words.
i would never hire you.
yes i know well what implemented means - and as you demonstrate it implies some action (practical effort).
not stopping a previously approved policy, is not an action of any kind
there is no practical effort involved.
nice try tho.
and apparantly you do not read well, that is why you think my sentences do not make sense.
are there typos, mis-spellings etc?
yup - and as i explained already, due to helth issues, i dont bother to correct them, as the meanings are still quite clear to anyone whose brain is not 3 peck short of a bushel.
now that you havbe proven me correct onn paygo - how about the math on that so-called balanced budget, that both bill, newt, and you appear to have no clue, by claiming it happened!
and remember - just because you can not identify the type of airplane overhead - that does not make it an 'unidentified flying object'.

btw ron,
i am i think like you on the issue of tos - i dont bother complaining to them.
if my statements sound arrogant - i do apologize, as that is not my intent.
i tend most days to only comment on things i know to be fact, mostly thru experience - i only trust the learning i got from by degree about 50%, and i dont believe 90% of what any media outlet says.
and even tho many of my respionses may be long - there are times that 15 or 20 lines will take 30 minutes or more, because i have to rest my fingers and hands repeatedly.
i also do not use a lot of flourish to soften my words.
i know what io have lived, seen and done.
i do however try to be very careful to state when it is merely my opinion, or interpretation. not that i always succeed.

lora,
are you implying i made a sexist remark, or attcked you personally ion some way?
first - i have no clue who you personally are - i may attack your comments or ideas for being false or incorrect - but i have never attacked you personally - or anyone else on gather.
i would think your name and pic are not really you to protect your own privacy!
there is a person here with an avatar of a young blond woman - but he flat out tells you, he is a middle aged man!
you have no way to know whether i am male ro female, and opnly slight clues as to my age.
how on earth could i even know your personal gender in real life to insult it?
and for the what - the 4th, 5th, maybe 6th time ......
ex[plain the huge increase in debt, while claiming a budget surplus!

quite a high op[inion of yourself you are stating - and really ? the averge iq on gather is 175? (20 points higher than mine you said).
somehow i doubt that.
and with that - either answer the question, or i will not respond to you again.
altho btw - just who in the hell do you think you are to tell me what hobbies i should or should not have based on my health?
the only thing you can possibly call me a bully for - is repeatedly askling the same question, that you have never once answered.
you are very quick to throw out unsubstantiated, and dis-provable 'facts' that politicians and media hype as real, but very slow to exp[lain or defend them - apparantly you prefer to attack typpos, grammer, spelling, helath issues, make false claims of being sexist, (is racist next?) and changing the subject.
as i think about it?
you have had more than enough chances to answer.
but instead make fun of the results of my poor health?
pound sand - i am done with you - low life that do that are not deserving of my attention.

Why bother to respond. It's simply not true that the budget was not balanced under Clinton.
We had a surplus at the end of his Presidency. Fact. Even staunch Republicans admit that. Why will you not?

ron - your words that you now dispute?
"Not to mention you forget, apparently, the 2009 budget, minus the spending for the stimulus, etc, that Obama added, was a Bush budget. "

I think you are misunderstanding me, your figures for the bush deficit neglect 2009, which was a doozy, and you put that spending on Obamas total, unfairly. The chart I posted has their totals, from the CBO, showing the real story of who was responsible for what spending, and it puts the 2009 spending Obama WAS responsible in his column, and the spending Bushs budget mandated in his. This is typical, it seems, for Republicans to throw that massive Bush budget into Obamas column, but highly deceptive.

I might have considered Huntsman, at least he was sane, but the circus that is left leaves me in a position where I will have to hold my nose and support Obama again. The lessor of the evils seems to always be who we have to choose, these days.

Well, Lora, that's what choices are all about. I cannot imagine how you might view the current POTUS any more the choice than a rotten egg buried inside a sneaker under a chicken coop, but we all have the Freedom (for now) to exercise our opinion, and our vote. I could imagine casting my vote for an earthworm prior to any in the stable...

...but, you've endeavoured to keep an open mind; that's good. Think of the Children :)

For now?

Thank goodness they've kept us from even worse fates than we'd have if they had said yes to everything. Frankly, they haven't said no enough. And because of that, we'll be looking to replace RINOs with more TEA party Republicans.

Let's do that and Hope, Marilyn! Hell knows that the "Elites" got 'hold of a good many of them, and instructed them on "how to fly..."

Oh right, the Tea Party isn't a Koch brothers astroturf job, I forgot. Who do you think the Kochs are, the little guy?

Yes, we must do that.

Ron, you saying something absurd does not make it truth no matter how many times you say it.

Besides...even if it were true, Koch Brothers are a heck of a lot better than Soros. Why do you love such a dangerous man?

I don't like either, Marilyn, and their money does not belong in politics, in either case. You can deny all you want, but the original tea party movement was spawned by Dick Army, and Freedom Works, which also bankrolled it at the start. Freedom Works is a Koch front, even later, when the Tea Party wanted to change their logo, at one point, Freedom Works nixed the idea, get over it. I am not saying that those in it are not genuinely dedicated to it, just that it was not a grassroots up organization, it was Kstreet down, in origin.