Skip to comments.Method to Democrats' Madness: Destroy GOP
Posted on 02/12/2009 5:11:02 PM PST by Delacon
The rush that hurts us all is not Rush Limbaugh but rushing into a massive almost-$800 billion spending bill without the proper hearings, time to consider and debate.
Yes, the so-called stimulus is almost the law of the land. But that does not make it the best possible stimulus bill to help revive a sick economy.
In fact this is the third time in the past 6½ years that a president twice G.W. Bush and now Barack Obama basically has held a gun to Congress head and forced it to short-circuit its normal way of doing legislative business, a way that has served our nation well for over 200 years.
But in the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, the September/October 2008 TARP votes, and now this massive stimulus spending bill, Congress has been rushed into making fork-in-the-road decisions that will affect the country for decades to come.
Mistakes are made in this situation. No members of either the House or Senate have yet read this huge 1,000-page-plus bill; nor will they before they vote on it. Hand-written additions of huge consequence will be sneaked in - and few if any members will even know about them until it is too late.
Now, the basic thought behind this Democratic-written bill is simple: Democrats and liberals believe that any and all government spending is a good thing, no matter what it is spent on. The left loves government spending - on everything!
They truly believe that, the more government spends, the more it gins up economic activity. Thus they blatantly put all those pork elements in there because they believed even those wasteful, ridiculous items will help spur a sick economy. They are the true practitioners of
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Let us look at a few seemingly small news items that lead us to a big conclusion:
Here is the Democratic plan to eliminate the GOP and thus guarantee one-party rule for decades to come:
The Republican Party already limping after the 2006 and 2008 elections is on the verge of political annihilation if the Democrats have their way.
The Democrats believe in payback big time and they are not going to risk another 1994 Republican Revolution. Instead, they are trying systematically to crush the remnants of the GOP.
Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";
Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;
Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;
Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;
Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;
Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;
Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:
SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882
He left out the Employee Free Choice Act which will put labor(by this I mean all people who work) right back in the democrat camp.
“But in the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, the September/October 2008 TARP votes, and now this massive stimulus spending bill, Congress has been rushed into making fork-in-the-road decisions that will affect the country for decades to come.”
I would add the patriot act to that. That bill was pulled off a shelf, probably edited for some stuff at the behest of the bush administration (I suspect gun control clauses were removed), and rammed through.
"But in the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, the September/October 2008 TARP votes, and now this massive stimulus spending bill, Congress has been rushed into making fork-in-the-road decisions that will affect the country for decades to come."
Nothing was "rushed" about going into Iraq. Clinton - YEARS before - had made this official US policy: Regime change if Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions that ended the first Iraq war. The actual debate about enforcing UN mandates with US troops went on for months before there was a congressional vote on the issue in 2002.
Can't these useless drive-bys research ANYTHING before they regurgitate the latest crap-of-the-day stories?
If they do the FD... lol then Katie Couric et al have to give US equal time on the MSM! ROTFLMAO
How long was the bill debated after being introduced to congress before it was voted on?
Rants about terrorism were not the topic, but major bills pushed through with a sense of great urgency and little debate is.
It does not make one a terrorist sympathizer to observe that the bill was off-the-shelf-ready waiting for opportunity and pushed through with almost no debate.
Who didn’t see this coming. The infuriating part is that the stupid Republicans have been complicit in their own demise. I could care less if it was just a matter of one more dead party, but it’s the only representation, such as it was, for conservative-minded people, patriots, people who still believe that families are the basic unit of society and that Christianity has been primarily a force for good in the world, that there was. We are now silenced, because the stupid “representatives” of the right cared more about their personal power than they did about the concept of public service. Of course there exceptions of individuals and specific actions, but in the whole it’s true.
could care less=couldn’t care less
George Bush already did that.. because he was "a Unite'er not a Divide'er" unfortunately he united with the democrats.. He did it so well John McLaim was not needed so America elected a REAL democrat.. not one Masked as a republican..
The point about having something shoved down ones throat is that one gags on it. RICO passed, if I recall, without so much as a gulp. My point was that RICO abridged the freedoms of Americans more than the Patriot Act yet umm went down smoothly. The Patriot Act got overwhelming support from Congress. Neither was shoved down our throats. A good example of a piece of presidential/congressional throat gagging would be the stimulus bill which is being forced down our throats as fast as it can with everyone and I mean EVERYONE(msm included) choking on it. And on immigration, the census, and the fairness doctrine, well we barfed the 1st and the 3rd up already, and will do so again on the census issue.
Preliminary talk out of the House about normalizing the immigration status of the 11 million to 20 million illegals now in the country. “
To anyone who can prove to me that the number of illegals is only 20 million, I will finance a nice dinner at Outback.
I lived in So Calif from 1964 to 1993. In the 80’s, the figure of 15-20 million illegals was the number bandied about.
It is evident that the flow of incoming across our southern borders was unfettered for a great number of years, and those who were coming have created ‘anchor babies’ who I don’t believe should be granted that status.
I am convinced the number of illegals is much closer to 50 million.
Anyone want to get an Outback dinner on me?
Or will you be buying mine?
Well I'd have to say that nothing was rushed until 911. In Bush's defense, acts of war NEED to be rushed. Clinton's push for regime change ranks up there with a vote by congress for a new national park. It had little force and affect. As for Saddam's violation of the UN resolutions, that's called breaking the terms of an armistice which means the resumption of war. There were what? 13 violations of the armistice? The UN just flat out refused to enforce its obligations to resume the war. Bush didn't break any UN or international laws by going to war with Saddam. None. The US had every right to RESUME the war. Bush exorcised the US’s right to uphold that obligation as a member nation.
It won't be as blatant this time around--all they want is a monopoly of the airwaves, not necessarily to throw people in jail for expressing opinions. Well, they may make expressing certain opinions hate crimes.
On the bright side, if the Free Choice Act is instituted, there will be a lot fewer people working. I know that if I had a shop and the workers unionized, I'd close it down immediately.
“could care less=couldnt care less”
regardless = irregardless
Unfortunately, the Republicans evolved into the Democrats.
I agree with much of what you say in this post (without the various insults/insinuations of the last post, which really weren’t necessary, read my post history from that time period).
I agree that despite a full-court media press, this and the bailout last year are very unpopular (with very good reason, particularly this one) and are going to become law anyway. This is the looting of the US treasury happening before our eyes.
It is remarkable that amnesty did NOT pass - I think opposition to it was a large majority % of the voting population, yet they nearly pulled it off. No doubt it will become law at some point soon.
The public mood after 9/11/01 was understandably scared/very insistent that the government DO something. They could have passed a patriot act which changed the national mascot to mickey mouse and it still would have had decent public support, as long as it promised to make people safe. Fedgov had a rather large law just waiting for a major event to push it through without debate, and they got it. To me, this is bad legislative process - in effect, as far as I know, the bill was not open to amendments, meaning congress had very little input at all. Of course they voted unanimously - I assume to some degree they felt threatened as well, many of them aren’t the sharpest pencils in the box anyway, and their constituents would have been livid if they balked. This doesn’t for a second mean most of them had clue 2 about what was in the bill.
An extra month of debate would not have hurt anyone (I have no doubt bush/cheney were going to do what needed doing, and I support this), yet would have possibly given people time to consider if they wanted hillary clinton (or now, obama) with this law in their hands, or with some elements of it. I am fairly certain I actually said this (re clinton) on FR at the time. I don’t feel it makes me a terrorist sympathizer or whatever you called me to point this out. I do feel it is stupid to not consider how the political opposition could use a law you support your side having.
It was a long time ago, but my memory is saying that one thing about what I knew about the law when it was being passed was that it seemed more oriented on domestic terrorism (meaning terrorism by native-born americans) rather than foreign organizations. I wondered if the law had originally been written with the OKC bombing or other similar stuff in mind, rather than bin laden/wtc1994 etc. This reinforced my belief that this was an off-the-shelf law that had been around a while.
I hope I have explained my point. When the public is genuinely scared and angry and physically threatened, you can pass anything you want in the name of security (or whatever watchword is needed. That doesn’t mean it is good to simply pass a bill with no amendment or debate or even discussion.
"Let us look at a few seemingly small news items that lead us to a big conclusion: Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., floated the idea, again, of reimposing the Fairness Doctrine; Nancy Pelosi has already supported this move..."
Shouldn't the "Fairness Doctrine" be applied to cable TV news???
And here I've been thinking all this time that Congress was a separate branch of government. I thought guns were BANNED in D.C???
Well, If thats the case, we can take over the demons party.
“I agree with much of what you say in this post (without the various insults/insinuations of the last post, which really werent necessary, read my post history from that time period).”
I appologize if I went beyond the level that I thought you established.
“I agree that despite a full-court media press, this and the bailout last year are very unpopular (with very good reason, particularly this one) and are going to become law anyway. This is the looting of the US treasury happening before our eyes.”
“It is remarkable that amnesty did NOT pass - I think opposition to it was a large majority % of the voting population, yet they nearly pulled it off. No doubt it will become law at some point soon.”
What is remarkable is that so many think that amnesty is inevitable considering the large majority of the voting population being against it. Why is it that conservatives look at a victory as an “almost lost”. No doubt its because conservatives will continue to follow republicans instead of the other way around.
“The public mood after 9/11/01 was understandably scared/very insistent that the government DO something. They could have passed a patriot act which changed the national mascot to mickey mouse and it still would have had decent public support, as long as it promised to make people safe.”
So condescending and insulting. Why dontcha just pat me on the head. My life experience has shown me that when somebody shoves me, I have to shove back. And when I do, safety doesnt enter into it. Control of my life happens first and safety follows.
“I hope I have explained my point. When the public is genuinely scared and angry and physically threatened, you can pass anything you want in the name of security (or whatever watchword is needed. That doesnt mean it is good to simply pass a bill with no amendment or debate or even discussion.”
You must understand that being genuiently scared, angry and or physically threatend doesnt mean that you are less capable of thinking reasonably or logicly. In fact it clarifies the mind when you are in such situations. The words you want to use are fearful and panic. Scared? Yes. Angry? Yes. Fearful? NO. Ready to panic? Only if liberals continue to run the country.
short version - how much debate on the patriot act? How long was it?
“So condescending and insulting”
the country just elected a guy with almost no public history. What do you think is appropriate in the context your comment was made?
“You must understand that being genuiently scared, angry and or physically threatend doesnt mean that you are less capable of thinking reasonably or logicly. In fact it clarifies the mind when you are in such situations”
were YOU voting on the bill? did YOU read in, in its entirety? Every page? Paragraphs annotated?
This isn’t you being scared and threatened, and then you crafting an appropriate threat-reponse behavior. This is mr. i am a corrupt congressman and they say vote yes voting yes. Not the same. Do you think they are the same?
Congressmen as a class had no clue on this one. They have no clue as a class on porkulus.
“Why is it that conservatives look at a victory as an almost lost. No doubt its because conservatives will continue to follow republicans instead of the other way around.”
My honest view - the major media DO control the debate 0 at least as long as the bulk of the population can buy food without complications. Until we are there, the MSM defines many terms of debate/discussion, and we really are screwed. The media must decisively influence >30% of the population in their vote. That is a horrid number. It is doom for the american republic.
Also, when the enemy can set votes on a policy repeatedly with impunity, it is an issue.
“I appologize if I went beyond the level that I thought you established.”
Are we still here on this? Examples of your comments and mine, side-by-side? I know I did not call you a terrorist sympathizer, so let’s see it. Quotes and links?
Yeah, I hate that one too. I know better, my fingers got ahead of my thoughts :)
You took a position. You hopped on this thread to attack the Patriot Act. Then I went on to defend it. You were condescending and wrote paragraphs to tell not only me but how everyone should feel and react.
|You took a position. You hopped on this thread to attack the Patriot Act. Then I went on to defend it. You were condescending and wrote paragraphs to tell not only me but how everyone should feel and react.”
You have issues, and I am done with you.
Democrats can’t destroy the GOP. This month’s unconstitutional stimulus bill will cause more Republicans to became involved in campaigns. In 2010, conservative candidates, for the U.S. Senate and House, should campaign together, similarly to the Contract with America. They should promise that, if Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress, theyll pass a set of about five bills, including cutting tax rates to the 1988 rates, obeying the 10th Amendment (which includes repealing all federal laws that mention abortion and spending that isnt mentioned in the Constitution), and building a brick wall along the Mexican border.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.