Repeal the Bill of Rights

I look forward to the death of both parties, as neither is anything more than an organized crime syndicate preying on the lifeblood of Real Americans.

 

100% agree

 

No Mags, I will not defend the party. In fact I think the Republican leadership is a mess. Both the speaker and Senate majority leader are gutless. I my opinion now that they have the majority,
they have failed to do their job, abrogated their responsibility.

I tend to think of myself as an independent even though I only voted for the Democrat twice. Once for John Kennedy and I would again, I always thought Nixon was a crook. Then I did it again,
voting for Bill Clinton the first time he ran, but it didn't take long before I was embarrassed by the guy. Bad mistake.

I actually think this system has outgrown it's usefulness It is rather idiotic to let people vote their will based more on their character type or race rather than logic. Running a country by selecting the most popular cheerleader by their stance on the emotional issues of the day is ridiculous.

Well come to think of it, I did vote for another Democrat, Senator Wayne Morris, he switch from Republican to independent, and then to Democrat. As I recall he was the only Senator
to vote against going to war in Vietnam. He was correct and I appreciated his lonely stance.

 

Uh, no. That falls in the pillaging category. Hmm, I know if I forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds in I'll think of it.

 

Or maybe no parties at all? Voting based on individual merits and ideology.

 

if it is the pink top, perhaps Ravage works for you

 

"Repeal the bill!"

 

That's not the common word I associate with those terms but works for me.

 

Two Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolutin, Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Neither won another election.

 

Isn't this pretty much what Obama has been trying to do?

 

That guy is a fucking troll...

 

State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson
By JONATHAN MARTINAUG. 11, 2015

WASHINGTON — For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson, for his visionary expression of the concept of equality, and Andrew Jackson, for his populist spirit and elevation of the common man.
Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future.

But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history. And state by state, Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat.

The Iowa Democratic Party became the latest to do so last weekend, joining Georgia, Connecticut and Missouri. At least five other states are considering the same change since the massacre in June at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C.
“The vote today confirms that our party believes it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality,” said Andy McGuire, the Iowa Democratic chairwoman.

For all the attention this summer to the fight over the Confederate battle flag, the less noticed moves by Democratic parties to remove Jefferson and Jackson from their official identity underscore one of the most consequential trends of American politics: Democrats’ shift from a union-powered party organized primarily around economic solidarity to one shaped by racial and sexual identity.

The parallel forces of class and identity, at times in tension and at times in unison, have defined the Democratic Party in recent decades. But the country’s changing demographics, the diverse nature of President Obama’s coalition and the animating energy of the Black Lives Matter movement have also thrust fundamental questions about race, gender and economic equality to the center of the Democratic presidential race.
...
The move to erase Jefferson and Jackson is not being welcomed by all Democrats. Some of them fear the party loses what has long been its unifying philosophy by removing the names of founders, whose virtues and flaws illuminated the way forward. And they worry that as the labor movement declines, cultural liberalism is beginning to eclipse a fundamental message of economic equality that brought about some of the party’s most important achievements, from the New Deal to Medicaid.

“What does the Democratic Party stand for?” asked Andrei Cherny, a Democratic writer and a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton. “Jefferson and Jackson and the ideas they stood for, spreading economic opportunity and democracy, were the beginnings of what was the Democratic Party. That is what unified the party across regional and other lines for most of the last 200 years. Now what unites everybody from Kim Kardashian to a party activist in Kansas is cultural liberalism and civil rights.”

Still, the motions have passed easily in the state parties that have considered them, with activists arguing that the two men no longer fit the party’s essential principles. Thomas Jefferson, while writing that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, owned over 600 slaves during his life, and it was slave labor that built and tilled the land at his Virginia estate, Monticello. He freed only a handful of them upon his death.

Andrew Jackson was also a slave owner and did not seem to wrestle with the morality of the institution, as Jefferson did at times. As president, he also consigned thousands of Native Americans to death by removing them from their homes in the South and pushing them west on what became known as the Trail of Tears.

...
It is partly because of the efforts of Democratic presidents that Jefferson and Jackson enjoy the standing they do. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the father of modern economic liberalism, was particularly devoted to elevating the two men, rushing to complete the Jefferson Memorial so his party could have a monument to compete with the Republicans’ Lincoln Memorial. And it was the house intellectual of the Kennedy clan, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who did so much to restore Jackson with his seminal biography, “The Age of Jackson.”

In more recent times, Bill Clinton memorably began his presidency with a pre-inaugural trip to Monticello and Mr. Obama took the president of France there last year and declared: “Thomas Jefferson represents what’s best in America,” while noting Jefferson’s “complex” relationship with slavery.
...
The paradox, Mr. Cherny noted, is that the two Democratic icons are being cast aside at a time when anger about racial inequality and anger toward financial institutions are two of the most stirring forces on the left.
“This is a moment where the issues Jefferson raised around equality of opportunity and the populism that Andrew Jackson brought to American politics for the first time are more salient now than they’ve ever been in decades,” he said.

The Jefferson-Jackson dinners — “JJs” in the shorthand of political operatives and insiders — are a staple of the political calendar.
It was at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa where Mr. Obama delivered one of his best speeches in the 2008 campaign, putting himself on a path to win the state’s caucuses and break the presidential color barrier.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...asing-ties-to-jefferson-and-jackson.html?_r=0