Shorter Today's Republican: We want control. All of it. Control of tax money. Control of how people live their lives. If there are enough of us in office, we'll take it.

The only thing that's new is that they're saying it out loud. During the entire Bush Administration (with support from too many in the political media), bipartisanship always meant "both sides come together and agree to do what Republicans want."

They ought to drag his sorry as* out of wherever he is and drop it in a grade 3 civics class, so that he might glean in the reptilian portions of his addled gray mass, some concept of Democracy.

The more i see what replublicans are getting passesd, and the more i read or hear what they are saying..... THE MORE I THINK IT IS TIME TO LEAVE. Hey Canada how you doing my new friend. I mean this is rediculous. I have been hearing that illegal immigration has been declining. I now know why. They were coming here for a better life and now republicans are making it so back A** crappy that people would rather stay out of the US. Maybe that was the Republican goal all along. I dought it i think there is just alot of Bat Sh*T crazy people in the world and they all seem to be running for office or voting for the ones who are running for office.

Mourdock would be better serving with Putin. Then he would not have to deal with us damn liberals.

On Mourdock's belief that bipartisanship means that the Democrats have to agree with the Republican point of view: I recall Hannah Arendt writing, with regard to the banality of evil, that it is the 'inability to think from the other's viewpoint."

Mourdock fits the bill. Surely a Democrat can beat this foul human being.

The liberal media will now stop acting like each side is equally radical, right? Right?

The GOP/Republicans and al-Qaida do have some things in common. They both insight hatred that causes people to be harmed such as Glen Beck, Sarah Pallin, Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, and numerous others that haven’t even been mentioned which are in both political and religious circles. With their slanderous talk, they have effectively caused people to be harmed and murdered by hatred. Al-Qaida wants to kill whoever disagrees with them. The Republicans want everyone to have guns on the streets and reduce law enforcement. Al-Qaida insists upon guns and bombs so they can kill whom they hate. The Republicans will do anything to destroy our economy so President Obama will not be re-elected. Al-Qaida flew planes into buildings so they could have a war with America and ruin America’s economy. Of course, Bush helped al-Qaida accomplish that task by doing anything possible to destroy America’s economy. Both, the Republicans and al-Qaida have extreme radical beliefs politically and religiously that are false that deceive the people into believing they are right. And this is just part of the iceberg of their power craving, hypocritical beliefs, arrogance, corruption, and deceiving that puts the GOP/Republicans just as bad as al-Qaida. So who really is the good guys? As far as this is looking, it sure isn’t al-Qaida or the GOP/Republicans, because these 2 groups are doing nothing but looking to divide the people, and put people into poverty, death and despair under a pretense of hatred and lies.

"You scratch my back, I scratch my back"

"Quid pro Quid"

"We'll go halfsies, you'll supply half of what I want and I'll supply the rest of what I want."

How about if we leave headlines like "redefining compromise" behind and start calling it what it is?

Republicans don't understand the concept of compromise - here's the quote:

Republicans publicly state that they have no intention of compromising:- here's the quote:

Republicans put party before country - here's the quote:

They should be unabashedly ridiculed for stuff like this!

Maybe they'll resort to making decision using a coin toss -- heads I win, tails you lose.

It is difficult to begin to address the thought and ideas embodied in the dear Republican's "principles" when those principles are not subordinate to the democratic values our nation was founded upon.

Seemingly, his "principles" and his party's "principles" have no room for the historical circumstances facing the newly founded united States of America under the Articles of Confederation. At such a time, the need for a federal authority was paramount, and the Preamble to our Constitution spoke eloquently to such need. The document these Tea Parting types misinterpret demands federal authority, not the coordinated effort they seem to be hoisting upon us in their pursuit to geld the federal government!

No, the dear Republican quoted above need not be named simply because his perspective represents a Grand Narrative his party is pushing at all costs. Group think, echo chamber, circling the wagons - call the dynamic by a number of terms, but we are witnessing some of our fellow Americans (Republicans) working themselves into a frenzy, and adamantly espousing extreme rhetoric and expecting us to "compromise?"

If the dear Repubican quoted above holds on to his beliefs, it is hard not to infer his attitude toward "otherness." Me thinks he has pejorative thoughts about those who would disagree with or are different than himself and those who dare call themselves Tea Party Republicans.

With such "principles," who needs a democracy! -Kevo

The next time Republicans are in control of Congress, I hope the Dems do not make the mistake of looking for bipartisanship. If voters do not toss out Republicans in this election, then I don't see any way forward for the Dems except to bring the Congress to a halt to get what they want. All Republican appointments should have holds and no legislation should go forward in the Senate. Republicans need a taste of their own medicine when they try to govern. But Dems are too mature to do that.

Crazy as these mfers are, I really think it's refreshing to hear them come right out and say what we've all known for years; "bi-partisan" means "both sides do what conservatives want." This has been obvious since forever, but the media has somehow managed all this time to pretend there is some noble, bi-partisan "center" that Republicans occupy. There isn't and never was.

Obvious these past few years to anyone paying attention.

We cannot afford to let them take control of the Senate, nor keep the majority in the House! Elect Democrats!

This is so perplexing that the party that seems to speak for business doesn't understand what compromise is....

Oops

You only have to loose the right to vote once, is that a compromise?

Which definition compromise and what definition of a republic are compatible. While ancient and venerable constitution defines the overall structure of our government and it somewhat defines responsibilities it was written against a backdrop of many British practices that in reality formed the basis and the ideals of a constitutional form of government. Thus many items in constitution are included to correct the problems caused when the British assumed powers that were not literally in the British Constitution. Since the US Constitution does not explicitly address the British you may be surprised to know that many ideas were created to avoid natural omissions, and other omissions were soon noted, hence the US version implies a representative democracy remain sound, that the republic could continue and that amendments could accepted following rigorous approval.

Today it is clear to at least one writer, that the representative portion implied in the assumptions of soundness the representative process, that show signs of corruption that have passed out of favor. Many of the contributors of the Constitution did not sign the document as we seem to have to be reminded now and again the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, then or now.

To the extreme and for the sake of brevity, today our version of representative democracy include neither words democracy or representative, but have reverted to the primitive conflicts not unlike the Honor Duel to the Death, where only the winner survives. Thus this survivor, the winner, assumes the wealth of the loser, and looks ahead to the next dual. After few rounds of bloodshed, you in trying to avoid a duel might understand that being elected to this office does not make you representative of those who you elected. This understanding might come from those peaceful constituents who are quite content with living their lives, productive, happy and only occasionally aware of some threat of war. Office holders as Gladiators having term limits are not going to provide the good governance you voted for. The office holder is not representing the constituency, and the vote you are casting does not represent democracy.

This when we looked at so closely it means that the vote is an irreducible primitive requirement of democracy, or the pendant requirement that the vote cannot be reduced to zero, and if negative numbers were known to Ancient Greeks, they would have included rule to handle negative votes or suppressed votes. The bargain was the to exchange direct democracy for the more abstract vote implied was the fact that democracy was to do more of something for you than doing it yourself. Contrast this with morlocks of today, who espouse "personal democracy", where we have a loss of literacy to the point where we do not understand the meaning of anarchy. Those vote you cast were toward the delegation of the best individual to represent your interests. If the vote were close then by including the democratic concept, the winners would be on guard to deliver the best performance in office to represent the whole of democratic constituency, those who subscribed to the vote, to representative democracy and the will do their to elect the best possible representative.

This detailed presentation comes down to; the vote does not support the democratic principles when the winner merely represents the voters who happened to vote in the winners favor.

We are only one single vote, one single election away from destroying the voting concept, the voter's concept of democracy, the idea of representative democracy, and one vote away from losing it all.

We need an epiphany, where when you're sworn to up hold the office you have been elected to, that you will represent your entire constituency, no matter how they voted, if they voted or have the right to vote.

As you can see the vote is a means of delegating of democratic authority to an elected official who is to carryout representative democracy.

As you can understand the elected official who represents only donors, who represents only those who voted for them, who takes a single plurality, and molds it into a personal dictatorship, who then undertakes to suppress the constituency rights is not in the service of democracy, is not the keeper of a strong republic, and does not and cannot be accepted as supportive of constitutional defined republic.

This country and few others across the world and though time, have seen the enemy and that enemy does not represent the people who form the constituency of voters who delicate democratic power to be governed and to find themselves without representation in the government they formed.

The accident of single vote resulting in tyranny cannot be repaired by a single vote to restore democracy, the vote to delegate democracy and to form the republic and to understand to whom that power belongs to cannot happen overnight. This because compromise that is not compromise comes only by tyranny and who appoints tyrants, how do they come to power, how do they stay power, in a republic what does that mean, in a democracy what does that mean, and the vote what does that mean.

The bought and paid for tyrants have run amuck, and we will see this change, it not some "personal democracy" that holds the key it is the democracy that is ours, and a democracy that is ours alone to keep.

What I find amazing about this is that I've been saying for years that Republicans' idea of compromise is that Democrats surrender to them. And now here's a Republican saying essentially what I've been saying, in all seriousness, in public, into a microphone, on videotape.

So, apparently, the most extreme sort of wingnuttery I can imagine for them is exactly what makes the most sense to them in real life. We are so screwed.

We don't need no stinkin' checks and balances. We will tell the people what we are going to do. Didn't you all see what we did in Wisconsin, Michigan and tried to do in Ohio? Just face it, people, we know what is best for you and the country, no need to vote, call or write your congress person.

Meddling

I thought about cheering you up - this has potential as a Shoebox greeting card except that there is no funny punch line waiting when you open the card. Instead Google and download

The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press.

To preserve your sanity - just skip to pages 50 and 51. The short version - they don't want compromise -

it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

For any RAH'ers out there - it could be worse - Nehemiah Scudder could be running as a third party candidate. As a matter of fact, I found Nehemiah Schudder for President bumper stickers online.

Good night and Good Luck.

Adam_Selene

First glance it looked like something gross fell in someone's bowl of nachos. sohbet