16

Peter King: Boehner exit means 'the crazies have taken over the party'

Posted by Eudaimonia 5 years, 2 months ago to Politics
71 comments | Share | Flag

“I think whoever runs for speaker should make it clear that he’s not going to give in to these people. We’re not going to appease them," he concluded. "The time for appeasement is over.” - Peter King.


So, King thinks that the GOP-e has been appeasing the base? That's a neat trick while they're also cowering in the corner licking Obama's boots.

Good luck with that, "the time for appeasement is over," strategy, Pete.

-----

Oh yeah, please remember, my Two Strike Policy is always in effect.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
SOURCE URL: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/john-boehner-resigns-peter-king-reaction-214083


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by RJSchimenz 5 years, 2 months ago
    Pete King is my representative. A Republican who runs with Conservative Party support, he has become too comfortable in the mainstream. He habitually opposes the protection of individual rights, votes to increase spending tax dollars, and pays lip-service to limited government. Like many elected officials, he has forgotten that the Constitution was written to keep him and his peers in line.
    As a registered Conservative, I am embarrassed that he is supported by a party that is supposed to support limited government and individual rights.
    It's time for him to go.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
      You should be looking at what the Conservative Party there supports. Conservative", like "liberal", is a broad, imprecise term ranging from establishment status quo to religious zealots, with some tea party influence. The conservative movement in general has been very mixed at best.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by $ richrobinson 5 years, 2 months ago
    Has a Democrat ever called members of their party "crazies"? I feel terrible that Peter King may have to decide how to vote. The House cryer is not available to tell him how to vote. The status quo has been disrupted for now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
    Peter is either providing a cover for the fact that there will be no change whatsoever, or he is quaking in fear that conservativism is still alive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
      Conservatism is worse than alive. It's killing the tea party revolt with a dominating religious agenda. No wonder calling it "crazies" has such plausibility.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 5 years, 2 months ago
        I agree with you, ewv, but as an atheist, I don't get a lot of warm fuzzies here, too...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
          There are a handful of religious agitators who are corrupting the purpose of the forum. Make a simple statement consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason rejecting religion and they become unglued in their snide and often hysterical outbursts. I know what you mean, but we don't need "warm fuzzies", only rationality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 2 months ago
            Since you mention it, you bring up religious beliefs and go on religious rants far more than anyone else on these boards. Perhaps if you toned that rhetoric down a bit, you might find people more willing to discuss things with you.

            Yours to decide.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
              I do not "go on rants" and do not gratuitously bring up religion. I respond to false and inappropriate comments. It is not "rhetoric". Take your personal attacks somewhere else.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 2 months ago
          Please consider, my dear Plusaf, that if you choose to offend people's cherished beliefs, some may strike at yours as well. I haven't been around perhaps as long as some, but I haven't seen any of the professed Christians on these boards coming out with guns blazing screaming, "where are those dirty atheists? Lemme at 'em!".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 5 years, 2 months ago
            Well, Salty, when I took the est Training three times, it dawned on me that "offense is in the mind of the alleged offendee" and that seemed, and still seems to be a reasonable, workable way for me to motor through life.

            See, for example, The Bill of No Rights (google or on my site at http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/noright...

            I am not 'choosing to offend people's cherished beliefs.'

            I am choosing to question assertions by others which seem illogical to me. I'm challenging their positions, so if that's 'offending people's beliefs' that's their problem and they can call off the discussion on their own and I will respect that.

            I don't like Eudaimonia's style of 'my way or the highway' or 'it's my thread so follow all of MY rules... or Else!' including his Three Strikes Rule.

            My 'three strikes rule' is that, when i realize that a discussion HAS faded into ad hominem 'logic' and 'Reason and Logic haveLeft The Building', I'm also free to 'take my ball and go home' and leave the playing field... even if I'll be accused of 'losing the argument' by people with whom it's just become 'no fun to play with any more.'

            And, frankly, I've seen way more of that here than I like.

            Thanks for your comment.
            Cheers!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
        Your definition of "conservatism" is different from mine, and so is the GOP definition. The religious right are RINOs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
          The conservatives -- the ones King is talking about -- are in fact promoting and emphasizing religion in their politics. They are discrediting the entire tea party movement they are associating it with. That is what gives King's characterization of "crazies" plausibility. They are doing it themselves.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
            "The Religious Right" is a bogey-man which, if King is invoking, he is doing so to protect his own butt.

            And while I do not doubt that there is a "Religious Right", it is no where near the number, intensity, or danger that those who rail against it would have us believe.

            As a proof of this statement I point to Leonard Peikoff who endorsed a known Marxist agitator over a supposed religious right bogey-man.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
              You have not proved anything and Leonard Peikoff has nothing to do with it. Every one of the leading conservative politicians is publicly harping on religion, including trying to turn the election and the Federal budget into a battle for their agenda to ban abortion. Even Donald Trump is loudly insisting that the Bible is his "favorite book", waving it around while campaigning. It is displacing rational debate over the state of the country and driving people away from the movement against statism, which is in turn being exploited by the statists like King.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 2 months ago
                Are you suggesting that the leading conservative politicians shouldn't be allowed to harp on religion if they so choose? In truth, a politician 'harps' on any subject at his or her own peril. If you don't like it, that's certainly your prerogative and you can as a citizen vote accordingly. And so can everyone else.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
                I have not heard abortion come up once in the debates.
                And to call Donald Trump a conservative is a joke, the conservatives hate him.

                I have only proved to you nothing because there are way too many on this board who believe that anyone who disagrees with their own conclusions are not only mistaken, but morally corrupt - so those points are summarily dismissed.

                Now, get off of my thread.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
                  Abortion has come up plenty of times in the debates. But right now it's being disguised as "the Planned Parenthood scandal" and as calls to defund that NGO.

                  Reason has repeatedly documented that the anti-PP videos are doctored to deceive, and that PP has done nothing wrong in its disposal of waste from its operations. But the pro-life side persists in screaming about those things in order to distract the (mostly pro-choice) media from covering "progress" the pro-life side has made -- including both the Federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks (now pending in Congress) and requirements for hospital admission arrangements that have successfully shut down most clinics in places like Texas and Mississippi.

                  But Eudaimonia is partly right here -- the Religious Right are losing on most issues, mostly because they are old people and are not recruiting as fast as they are dying of old age.

                  What makes me ROFL is the assertion that the Religious Right are RINOs. This depends on what beliefs you think make someone a "real Republican", but for many years, religious conservatism was the correct answer to that question. It's primarily the influence of big spenders like Huckabee and Romney, and the big money donors who back them, that has made the GOP move away from religious (and small-government) conservatism to the point that the Tea Party movement was needed to save the GOP. At which point, a lot of libertarians like myself, who had earlier written off the GOP as hopeless, felt we now had hope because there aren't enough religious conservatives to keep control, either of the Tea Party movement or of the GOP if and when the movement takes over the GOP.

                  Now, like ewv, I would prefer that the Tea Party movement's main focus be on liberty (or at least cutting spending) rather than the Bible. But I'm not afraid of the Bible thumpers because there is no way the Tea Party will ever get a chance to implement their agenda (in the ways it differs from the libertarians' agenda). Demographics are winning this battle for us, so it need not be fought.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
                    I have found that the biggest threat from the religious zealots in politics for now has not been a matter of getting away with imposing their agenda, let alone a full blown theocracy, but rather to create such an embarrassment to the legitimate right and the best elements of the 'tea party' as to slow down or halt progress. In a few cases, conservative politicians with ability and who showed promise have underminded themselves. So I think we agree on that. But I don't know what you mean by counting on the "demographics" because the politics is fundamentally being driven by ideology, and I don't see that substantially improving in any age group. It's why we're here, still trying.

                    You're right about the Planned Parenthood controversy as a surrogate for anti-abortion and the latest defunding controversy over it. The world is in decline all around us and we have conservative politicians in Washington concentrating on lynching PP. They are funding Obama with more controls, taxes and spending, but they are making a "shutdown" war over PP the central battle. They aren't even trying to reduce spending over it, only shift the funding to similar groups under an Alinskyite nihilistic tactic of "RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” It's shear anti-intellectual agitation and chaos for a religious agenda. Robert Tracinski wrote a good analysis of the organized hysteria over PP in its early stages, but I don't know if he's followed up http://www.tracinskiletter.com/2015/0...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 2 months ago
                      I do not want to be distracted by it, except in this way-if I give up no one's freedoms or real time and attention to snag those anti-human bastards, I'm for it. clean de-fund. NOw the circus? well-if this isn't the circus, there would be another one. and if PP were pro-life, they'd be offering total female reproductive care, including pre-natal. they do not and they encourage teens to act without parental consent. bad all around. There are bigger fish to fry right now, I agree. If PP can make it without fed funding-well then.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
                    jdg, I had not seen Reason's analysis of the videos. If you have a link, I would be interested in reading/viewing it.

                    I, like you, also do not think that the RINOs are the Religious Right. The RINOs, for the most part, want nothing to do with the Religious Right.
                    It makes for an odd mix:
                    - the RINOs have Huckabee, the Conservatives have Santorum - both of whom I consider to be men of faith who let their faith get in the way.
                    - the RINOs have Romney, the Conservatives have Cruz - both of whom I consider to be men of faith who do not let their faith get in the way (at least not to the point of a Huckabee or Santorum)
                    - Only the Conservatives have Rand Paul
                    - Only the RINOs have Jeb Bush

                    I think that the Tea Party has not veered from its initial mission. What I see instead is some people with too stringent a litmus test in which any level of personal faith equates to potential theocrat. I think that those assertions are unreasonable. And because of that, I think that too stringent a litmus test is also unreasonable.

                    The sad fact is that we already live under a theocracy. Karl Popper claimed that Marxism is a religion. I think that he is correct in this. And if he is correct, we are already there. So why are we quibbling about potential theocrats when we have actual ones in office forcing their will on us daily?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
                  This is an Ayn Rand forum, which fact needs no defense. Ayn Rand was not a conservative and explained in depth why not.

                  You stated that "I point to Leonard Peikoff who endorsed a known Marxist agitator over a supposed religious right bogey-man" as "proof" that the "Religious right is no where near the number, intensity, or danger that those who rail against it would have us believe" . Your assertion is both false and obviously not a "proof" of your claim.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
                  You do not order people off this forum or any discussion within it. It is not your forum and not your thread. You started the discussion, you have no right to censor anyone for rejecting your apologetics for the religious right. Your frantic denunciations, 'down voting', and 'hiding' all posts by the author you are attacking despite the fact that they are directly on the topic are improper.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
                    "You do not order people off this forum ... It is not your forum"
                    Correct, and I have not done so.

                    "or any discussion within it... and not your thread"
                    Incorrect.
                    It has been long standing policy of this forum that posters had the ability and the choice to police their own posts.
                    That is why the hide option is there for posters.
                    I have used my Two Strike policy to police my threads when someone resorts to ad hominem, and will do so again.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
                      Your personal policy is contrary to the guidelines of the forum. You do not "own" the entire thread. You are not supposed to be suppressing posts you don't like, let alone all posts by someone who wrote any post you don't like, which is what you are doing. There have been no off topic posts or "ad hominems", as has been explained to you several times. You do not tell people "get off my thread" and proceed to suppress everything they write. It's not your forum and not "your" thread to do whatever you feel like. Your behavior has become abusive and does not belong here.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
        The ad hominem on this board has really got to stop.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
          It's not an ad hominem. Ayn Rand was not a conservative. The conservatives are in fact corrupting the entire tea party revolt with religion and giving it a bad reputation as they drive rational people away. That is what gives plausibility to the attacks on the tea party movement. 'Downvoting' a rejection of religion in politics is improper on this forum.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
            Agreeing that people calling people crazies is not ad hominem?

            Strike 2
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
              An ad hominem argument is the logical fallacy of attacking a person's character as a substitute for addressing the content of his argument. Stating that the religious right is discrediting the tea party revolt by tying it to religion, giving credibility to the dismissals of an establishment statist like King, is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 2 months ago
                Actually that's a stated opinion on your part, ewv, and not a statement of fact. Neither you nor I nor anyone else for that matter can make a blanket statement like that and claim it's fact.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
                  It is a fact and many of the religious conservatives are defensive about the controversy over their actions. They know what they are doing, but of course deny they are "discrediting" the tea party. They think they are supposed to be dominating it despite its origins as a secular revolt against statism and over fiscal matters.

                  Whether or not you understand that, this has nothing to do with "ad hominem arguments". A simple assertion presented as a statement of fact is not argument at all, let alone an ad hominem. Eudaimonia's accusations are false. Those who understand what the meaning of the principle of the fallacy of the ad hominem argument will ironically find it in his own rationalizations for his overtly tyrannical, punitive behavior. It's not even an ordinary, clean ad hominem, it fabricates the irrelevant premise as well.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 5 years, 2 months ago
    The only real difference between the GOP and the Dems is which liberties they want to take away. Either way you wind up with the people fearing the government and that is tyranny.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 2 months ago
    Sometimes I wonder if guys like Peter King inhabit the same country - world - universe as I do. What is so obvious to us seems to either go zooming over his head, or he becomes deaf to anything that doesn't conform to his preconceptions. It seems as if he wants a party that can only be described as Left Light.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
      Unfortunately they do inhabit the same universe -- and run it politically.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
        While I wish New York State were no longer part of this nation, let alone this universe, it is. ewv did not deserve a downvote on this one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 2 months ago
          LOL, Golly, jb, can you please not jettison NY into some lost corner of the space-time continuum until I have a chance to get out of it first? Yes, the region is awash in leftist statism and pure political idiocy (mainly due to the high -in all senses of that word- population of NYC and Albany, not the whole State), but there are a few of us Upstaters still surviving here until we can devise a decent exit strategy. The general State is definitely a downward flushing vortex, but there are some pockets of decent living still around. The missus and I haven't made the final decision yet, but Eastern Tennessee or New Smyrna Beach area of Florida are looking good.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
          New York is one of the worst, but there are many others. Should we give California back to La Raza in a "two state solution"? :(

          (Eudamonia routinely suppressed all my posts in his emotional outburst, it has nothing to do with content.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
            Indeed there are many others. For now, I am satisfied that my little corner of the world is a nice place to be. The effect of the rest of America has not gotten so big that I am "forced to look elsewhere" ... yet.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Slytherin 5 years, 2 months ago
    As I watch politics, it shows itself as a game of force. In addition there is so much hatred, contempt, and ad hominem attacks. Is this how society fights for power? I don't think Ayn Rand would be pleased.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
      She already said how 'unpleased' she was, why, and what must replace it. She did not want to "fight for power"; she wanted to eliminate it, which requires a better philosophy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 2 months ago
    I suppose that somehow Mr. King feels that the days of resounding Republican successes are over. I don't really know how he gets there, but what other reason can there be?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
      Because King's success is over.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
        How do you know? He's an establishment Republican who has the power within the party. What will take it from him? They are all afraid of losing their power no matter what party they are in, but as long as they (or their equivalents) remain in Washington they have enormous power that no one should have, whether they are in the majority or minority party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
          This did not deserve a downvote. How do you know is a fundamental question any Objectivist should ask?

          To answer, "How do I know?", Boehner's reign as Speaker of the House was one of vindictiveness, with Peter King as one of his chief lieutenants. If the new Speaker acts like the vast majority of politicians do (i.e. vindictively), then King will be relegated to being a backbencher. There is no guarantee that Boehner's replacement will not also be a RINO, and there is no guarantee that the new speaker will not be vindictive. Both have chances of occurring, albeit small chances, so ewv has a point.

          My response that King's success is over had more to do with how King equated Republican success with his own success.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
            The last statement about the original point isn't clear to me. He ties his own success to wanting the party to be in power, but what does that aspect have to do with Boehner?

            Was King so closely allied with Boehner and his manipulations that he is in danger? I don't see any sign yet that the establishment is thinking of giving up real power to the insurgents. They typically will go down with the ship they sink rather than give up their own power, like in Atlas Shrugged. Insider establishment power politics has run the House for a very long time. It didn't start with Boehner and won't end with his resignation . I don't think we have anywhere near the whole story on why Boehner resigned. It doesn't seem to be like the straightforward resignation from the Senate by Olympia Snowe for the reasons she gave, even though their public statements are similar. As Speaker, Boehner has been under different kinds of pressures and I wonder if he really quit only out of discouragement as a failed Pragmatist dealing with increasing contention between adamant factions.

            (The 'downvotes' and 'hiding' regardless of content have come from a personal vendetta trying to be deliberately punitive.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
              "Was King so closely allied with Boehner and his manipulations that he is in danger?" Yes, they are quite closely aligned. All that you said is correct.

              Mark Meadows, a non-RINO congressman, has been digging away at the roots to Boehner's power and has finally gotten his first treasure. Whether he can topple the entire RINO establishment remains to be seen.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 5 years, 2 months ago
    Peter King, (RINO, NY) was one of the major impediments to progress, and his record shows it.
    Sequestration is one of the major faulty buzz words, meaning, "We'll confuse the Hicks in the bushes by slowing growth by 2 percent." In reality there is 20 percent waste in every Executive Level Department, Agency, Commission, and Board. and it has been missed because Congress has been voting on total departmental budgets instead of examining every line Item in every budget.
    Procurement has been a mess since FDR threw out the Zero Based Budget format that was the standard since the beginning. The old way DOD or its authorized elements, i.e. the Navy, would publish a specification, manufacturers wishing to compete for the contract would make testable examples or plans for larger items like ships. A winner would be selected and a contract written. Under FDR the DOD Element awarded the Contract to a politically favored son, and a the Government paid for all the R & D.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MacontheRock 5 years, 2 months ago
      How do we get rid of Peter KIng is the question? Who do we have out there to beat him ?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RJSchimenz 5 years, 2 months ago
        Great point. We have no one. The goal should be to publicize King's apostasy. We didn't beat Boehner. But he's packing it in. It's not much, but it might be all we've got.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
        That depends on who is in his district and how many are willing to vote for something better. He may be fooling some voters with his rhetoric, but the sad fact is that some Congressional districts are dominated by philosophically corrupt voters who lean towards or support statism. The northeast is full of them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 5 years, 2 months ago
    Maybe I have missed something. Tell mister King that the party in total is populated by crazies., so regardless who the new speaker is nothing will change.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 2 months ago
    King is looney. Why are Trump, Fiorina and Carson the top three in position for the Republican nomination for President right now? Because Republican voters are sick of voting for leaders who claim that they will take a principled stand against Obama and the Democrats only to be betrayed by the leadership of Boehner and McConnell. Boehner leaving is a good first step only if someone like Meadows (Gohmert and Gowdy have already said they will not seek the Speakership) takes over. Let's see who is going to replace Boehner before we start calling this a major victory.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 5 years, 2 months ago
    Unfortunately for Peter King, the "Crazies" are the lunatic "moderates" that have been the lapdogs who are perfectly happy to hand the Republican party over to Obama and the Democrats! Let's be clear, Mr. King is an "Establishment" type who has grown way too comfortable by "infesting" the DC Beltway for so long! He actually has forgotten why he was sent to Washington in the first place and, more importantly, who he is working for!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MacontheRock 5 years, 2 months ago
    We conservatives better stop cheerleading and refrain from entertaining ourselves. at start supporting meaningful idea to reinvent the USA. It can not be reformed. Thing BIG again as a country or lose to the statist. The Progressive Movement is over on the 100 year anniversary. (1912-2012) log on ten ideas www.TheFiscals.com
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
      well put however.....the entrenched power are the conservatives if you look at original definition. set in concrete if not stone with mortar, fortifying, unwilling to change or change more than slowly that now defines the left.

      liberals are the opposite and usually define the outsiders....

      Wonder how the left will spin this one.

      A word of warning. Not time to celebrate yet. The Boehner Ouster was and inside the left. May have left a chink in their armor but it was an inside job and all the likely replacements fully support the GOP staying as the right wing OF the left.

      Now if you take the handful that are not RINOs find out they are the majority of the GOP and Kick them out of the party or start a new GOP that are not lapdogs of the left. THAT would be a very liberal and bold move and mean something worth celebrating

      Until then businsess as usual..

      What would it take? Another Gingrich has been mentioned
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 2 months ago
      Ayn Rand formulated and supported meaningful ideas over fifty years ago. They don't include religious conservatism, starting with the Buckleyites of her era, which she rejected. Those who are attracted to the sense of life in her novels should do everything they can to understand the philosophy of reason and egoism that made it possible and strive for a more educated and consistent electorate. The culture is determined by its dominant ideas. The progressive era (intellectually beginning much more than 100 years old) gradually overcame the Enlightenment and became entrenched hundreds of years later. Cultural change of this scope does not happen over night.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 5 years, 2 months ago
    I just love it when people who have produced nothing
    argue with others, some of whom have produced objective
    value in their lives. . it's like Oz criticizing Dorothy for
    having Toto -- care for someone yourself, sir!!! -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo