PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republ...

PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party

There are 2202 comments on the Washington Times story from Oct 12, 2013, titled PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party. In it, Washington Times reports that:

The Republican Party saved the Union and abolished slavery. The Republican Party stood against Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and against Jim Crow laws in the 50's.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#2243 Dec 16, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>your post proves your for Communism but Son you are probably that don't want to share in the work like the Liberals here in the US which is why we have more takers(Non Tax Payers) than givers(Tax Payers) and if you understand economics then you would understand why your thinking has already been proven to be a failure and the Liberal Democrats and LBJ's Great Society is proof.
You know what is rather entertaining is that you completely ignored his point.

You say wealth redistribution is a bad thing.

Capitalism was established by governments using wealth redistribution.

Thus Capitalism should be ban because it's application was brought about through what you see as ill gotten means, the theft of the nobility of European nations wealth.

I am sure you don't feel the same way.

So if wealth redistribution was OK for applying the then capitalist economic theory, why is wealth redistribution just an deeply evil thing today?
1 post removed

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2245 Dec 20, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No one is listening to the Political Left either and People have had enough of it and Obamacare has proven that and the only ones for the ACA are the Welfare Society because they don't pay to begin with.
Poll: ACA approval at 41 percent
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/poll-af...
9% poll for your Republican Congress! Infighting between Tea Party Zealots and Conservative Republicans. You party is in ruins and thank God for that!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2246 Dec 20, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>another one that hates the truth.
You're such an imbecile that you wouldn't recognize the truth if it beeatch slapped you upside your empty head! You and the rest of the Republican drones! A bunch of repessed, parroting idiots!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2247 Dec 20, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not jealous of Obama. I have never been jealous of any president (outside of the fact they get great meals). As for Barack's rich buddies, I can say with certainty I have been in more black neighborhoods than Barack has been since he has become president and I can say with certainly I spend far less time with filthy rich white liberals. You know, you'd almost think Barack doesn't like black people.
.
You forgot how the Democrats treated George W. Bush. Forgetfulness and selective memory is a key trait for being a Democrat (along with being clueless about economics).
.
As for food stamps, Obama has made a concerted effort to expand the program, to the point verification is almost ignored. The cut was minor and can be made up in part by seeing who really needs food stamps. Keep in mind how large that program will become once the illegals become legal. Since they will get benefits you will see a dramatic increase in welfare costs.
.
Has Obama come out in the open and demanded heavier tax increases for everyone to pay for all this? Is he afraid he might offend his filthy rich San Francisco buddies? Afraid he might risk some juicy speaking fees after he leaves office?
.
I appreciate your desperate attempts to run cover for a man who in 2008 said Americans have had it too good. The funny things is, Barack seemed to forget he was a millionaire at the time.
Happy Holidays LTE and have a blessed New Year full of financial success.

I won't be back, so I am wishing you and yours well!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2248 Dec 20, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
?? The political right came up with ObamaCare, in the Heritage foundation. Obama should have changed his political affiliation to republican as he caves to every one of their demands and has given nothing to his base. The only reason he gets any votes at all is because he is not as extreme as the GOP candidates who openly admit they will break any law to give all our wealth to the rich. Obama gives away the fruit of our labor, but not quite as quickly as the republicans.
So the far right gets a voice (the democratic party) and the fanatic far right gets an even louder voice (the republican party), while those on the left get no voice at all. When was the last call for single payer universal health care? When was the last call to end the GOP wars? When was the last call to end the so called trade agreements, where we agree to give all our wealth away for nothing? When was the last call to restore freedom to Americans by voiding the Pat Act? Welfare society?? a figment of the imagination of the far far sicko right wing. How about allowing opportunity for more than just the very very rich?
Oh, and by the way, my company just received the quote for how much the health insurance will cost next year. It is down 30%. What will I ever do with all that extra money?
what they are not telling is the Hertiage Fountion including Stuart Butler, Ph.D who scraped the plan too that was created by the Hertiage Foundation and they testified before the SCOTUS too especially over the Individual Mandate which they felt was Unconstitutional too.

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/f...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2249 Dec 20, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't read horses--t from TownClown.com . Try explaining it in your own words, moron.
you confirmed you are an illiterate moron.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2250 Dec 20, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
More gibberish doesn't explain anything, nitwit.
more nonsense from the moron.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2251 Dec 20, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what is rather entertaining is that you completely ignored his point.
You say wealth redistribution is a bad thing.
Capitalism was established by governments using wealth redistribution.
Thus Capitalism should be ban because it's application was brought about through what you see as ill gotten means, the theft of the nobility of European nations wealth.
I am sure you don't feel the same way.
So if wealth redistribution was OK for applying the then capitalist economic theory, why is wealth redistribution just an deeply evil thing today?
you want to see the affects of Wealth Redistribution got to Detriot, MI and live there and your opinion will change and another thing Socialism comes before Capitalism which Karl Marx invented these terms and only does Marx Communism advocate Wealth Redistribution.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2252 Dec 20, 2013
Sunobia wrote:
<quoted text>9% poll for your Republican Congress! Infighting between Tea Party Zealots and Conservative Republicans. You party is in ruins and thank God for that!
for your information I am a Democrat which then you confirmed you are a Communist then.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2253 Dec 20, 2013
Sunobia wrote:
<quoted text>You're such an imbecile that you wouldn't recognize the truth if it beeatch slapped you upside your empty head! You and the rest of the Republican drones! A bunch of repessed, parroting idiots!
No you are such the Imbecile by calling a Democrat a Republican which makes you a Communist then.
Buzzcut

Leominster, MA

#2254 Jan 18, 2014
The Republicans can easily survive and outside the cities own the countryside. They earned district by district a solid majority in Congress. They have trouble in the "Entitlement minded" cities where crooked Democrats can roll up extra votes by fraud which is how Oama stole the last election.

When the adolescents grow up and want a family instead of an abortion, they will start voting Republican.

All Republicans have to do is keep pressure on exposing the TRUTH about Obama.

Repubcans have a great future --- UNLESS they cave on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

If they cave on that one issue they are gone in 10 years or less.

Illegal aliens are by definition, "ENTITLEMENT MINDED" as they believe mistakenly that they are entitled to break into the US and steal a citizenship.
fingiswold

Chagrin Falls, OH

#2255 Jan 19, 2014
Buzzcut wrote:
The Republicans can easily survive and outside the cities own the countryside. They earned district by district a solid majority in Congress. They have trouble in the "Entitlement minded" cities where crooked Democrats can roll up extra votes by fraud which is how Oama stole the last election.
When the adolescents grow up and want a family instead of an abortion, they will start voting Republican.
All Republicans have to do is keep pressure on exposing the TRUTH about Obama.
Repubcans have a great future --- UNLESS they cave on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
If they cave on that one issue they are gone in 10 years or less.
Illegal aliens are by definition, "ENTITLEMENT MINDED" as they believe mistakenly that they are entitled to break into the US and steal a citizenship.
You're still talking paranoid yokels. Intelligent people aren't going to buy this BS...they know that opposition to Obama is rooted in racism.

ReTHUGs have done NOTHING to combat illegal immigration, because it suits them to have illegals making them dinner in fancy restaurants, and being their maids and pool boys. That will sink them, and I love it.

Buh-bye, GOP! LOL
fingiswold

Chagrin Falls, OH

#2256 Jan 19, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No you are such the Imbecile by calling a Democrat a Republican which makes you a Communist then.
Calling people "Communists" because you disagree/don't like them is typically and stupidly ReTHUGlican.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2257 Jan 19, 2014
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling people "Communists" because you disagree/don't like them is typically and stupidly ReTHUGlican.
No you have problem with Democrats like me that tell the truth and can tell and see who are the ones that are advocating for communism and they are within both the Republican and Democrat parties today and they call communism now liberalism and there is one aspect of communism that Liberals want nothing to do with and that is sharing the work of Society equally too which they are not for and the New Left's Great Society is proof of that with their Liberal Utophia which depends on others wealth to be redistributed and Detroit, MI is a prime example of what happens with the New Left's Liberalism when it runs out of other wealth and money when nobody wants to work and lives off the system that is responsible for redistributing the wealth and in detroit's case they money is all gone and Detroit is really no different than what happened to Jamestown's Great Society but called it the Common Store System and it failed too and all we are doing here in the US today is repeating the failure of Jamestown.

Common Store System

Despite their early failures, the English eventually succeeded in colonizing America. The first English colony to take off was Jamestown in 1607. The main reason for Jamestown taking off was tobacco, a crop that would become on of the bases of the Southern economy. The beginning of the colony was rocky, because settlers were aristocrats who did not want to work and did not understand the peculiarities of America. The local natives, led by Powhatan, assisted the colonists in adapting to the New World. While this made it a bit better, there was a systematic problem that still needed to be addressed. In one of the earliest instances of socialism, the Virginia Colony had adopted a common store system where food was taken by the community and distributed out to everyone equally. Many of the colonists decided not work, leading to food shortages. The system demoralized those who did work because the food they produced was being distributed to nonworkers. Captain John Smith abolished common store in 1608 with a famous new policy, "He who does not work shall not eat." This policy provided an incentive to work by placing responsibility on the individual.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Introduction_t...

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#2258 Jan 19, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you want to see the affects of Wealth Redistribution got to Detriot, MI and live there and your opinion will change and another thing Socialism comes before Capitalism which Karl Marx invented these terms and only does Marx Communism advocate Wealth Redistribution.
Ohhh, forgive me. I didn't know that until an act can be explained in an intelligent description it doesn't exist in any form right?

And you may want to look up history there bro... Capitalism was formed well before Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital or In Capital: Critique of Political Economy in 1867, which was written as a counter view point to the industrial revolution period of capitalism inspired by Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations or The Wealth of Nations written in 1776

Which again, Karl Marx was fathering communism political thought not socialism, which was more attributed to Pierre Leroux, Robert Owen and Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in the early 1820s Europe, again in a counter point to Adam Smith's economic philosophy being the norm of then economic thought and practice.

So in short Capitalism existed before both Socialism and Communism since they were created as a counter point to Capitalist economic practices.

Which still doesn't let you off the hook in your statement. If redistribution is such a evil and godless crime then why is it ok to steal the wealth of European nobility and redistribute it to the common rabble like what was done during the implementation of Capitalism throughout Europe and then the world?

Because Capitalism was born from what you see as such unjust and evil series of crimes then surely it should be a banned economic model since it inspired such an immoral theft of wealth from nobility that built that wealth over generations of hard work and loyal service to their ruling monarchs right?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2259 Jan 19, 2014
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhh, forgive me. I didn't know that until an act can be explained in an intelligent description it doesn't exist in any form right?
And you may want to look up history there bro... Capitalism was formed well before Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital or In Capital: Critique of Political Economy in 1867, which was written as a counter view point to the industrial revolution period of capitalism inspired by Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations or The Wealth of Nations written in 1776
Which again, Karl Marx was fathering communism political thought not socialism, which was more attributed to Pierre Leroux, Robert Owen and Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in the early 1820s Europe, again in a counter point to Adam Smith's economic philosophy being the norm of then economic thought and practice.
So in short Capitalism existed before both Socialism and Communism since they were created as a counter point to Capitalist economic practices.
Which still doesn't let you off the hook in your statement. If redistribution is such a evil and godless crime then why is it ok to steal the wealth of European nobility and redistribute it to the common rabble like what was done during the implementation of Capitalism throughout Europe and then the world?
Because Capitalism was born from what you see as such unjust and evil series of crimes then surely it should be a banned economic model since it inspired such an immoral theft of wealth from nobility that built that wealth over generations of hard work and loyal service to their ruling monarchs right?
you might want to get familar with the terms and the terms Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism that were invented by Karl Marxs and no Socialism if you read Marx's writing is the foundation of Captialism and Communism it is society that will determine that path it takes and Yes Marx labeled the US as being founded on Socialism Marxism Socialism that is.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#2260 Jan 20, 2014
From 1607 to 1779, and independence.......... America very much was a Socialist State. Everything belonged to the Crown, even the subjects (people) living on the land. There was no individual rights

It's difficult to believe you're a high school graduate.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you might want to get familar with the terms and the terms Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism that were invented by Karl Marxs and no Socialism if you read Marx's writing is the foundation of Captialism and Communism it is society that will determine that path it takes and Yes Marx labeled the US as being founded on Socialism Marxism Socialism that is.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#2261 Jan 20, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
From 1607 to 1779, and independence.......... America very much was a Socialist State. Everything belonged to the Crown, even the subjects (people) living on the land. There was no individual rights
It's difficult to believe you're a high school graduate.
<quoted text>
You are wrong. Like the crown had thousands and thousands of bureaucrats searching every nook and cranny for over 60% taxation in real terms as we do now. Yeah that what was happening. Citizens had rights but no representation and say in taxation. The reason British colonists and those under their domain did well in the Americas faster then the spanish, the french and others is because of the rights granted in the magna carta and the rule of law that other nations did not have. Basic to be sure. But they were real and it was part of the foundation of the United States. Keeping what you created spurred growth. The British crown got to greedy for its own purpose and frankly, many people in America could care less about it back then. But war lets you see sides. And the British came off as the bad guys to the revolutionists.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#2262 Jan 20, 2014
You should read up on the Magna Carta, The 1 st Magna Carta was forced on King John in order for him to keep his crown and head.

Then read up on the early settlers in the British North American Colonies.
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> You are wrong. Like the crown had thousands and thousands of bureaucArats searching every nook and cranny for over 60% taxation in real terms as we do now. Yeah that what was happening. Citizens had rights but no representation and say in taxation. The reason British colonists and those under their domain did well in the Americas faster then the spanish, the french and others is because of the rights granted in the magna carta and the rule of law that other nations did not have. Basic to be sure. But they were real and it was part of the foundation of the United States. Keeping what you created spurred growth. The British crown got to greedy for its own purpose and frankly, many people in America could care less about it back then. But war lets you see sides. And the British came off as the bad guys to the revolutionists.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#2263 Jan 20, 2014
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> You are wrong. Like the crown had thousands and thousands of bureaucrats searching every nook and cranny for over 60% taxation in real terms as we do now. Yeah that what was happening. Citizens had rights but no representation and say in taxation. The reason British colonists and those under their domain did well in the Americas faster then the spanish, the french and others is because of the rights granted in the magna carta and the rule of law that other nations did not have. Basic to be sure. But they were real and it was part of the foundation of the United States. Keeping what you created spurred growth. The British crown got to greedy for its own purpose and frankly, many people in America could care less about it back then. But war lets you see sides. And the British came off as the bad guys to the revolutionists.
Promises of the Magna Carta

1.not to imprison nobles without trail

2.that trails must be in courts not held by me

3.to have a fair taxation for the nobles

4.to let freemen to travel wherever they like

5.not to interfere in church matters

6.not to seize crops without paying for them

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min cpeter1313 8,439
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,581,927
News Report: Higher premiums if Trump halts 'Obamaca... 8 min Dee Dee Dee 57
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 13 min positronium 26,373
News Is healthcare a Jewish value? NEW 15 min The Bible Student 50
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 23 min NTMD8OR 287,579
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 36 min positronium 8,651
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 45 min Covfefe 1,437
More from around the web