Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, the problem is the tent is too big. Democrats pretty much march in lock-step. Republicans go from moderate to libertarian. Democrats go from Socialist Democrat to . . . extremely progressive.

I disagree. We've all heard RINO, but I remind you there is no DINO. No one uses the expression or the concept, because it doesn't exist. I think the Dems are far more welcoming of diverse opinions, and no one is ostracized, or shunned because their views are different from the democratic orthodoxy. There used to be a strong New York City Republican party: they were called "silk stocking republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," but that whole movement is essentially dead, along with its ilk all through the Northeast, and it's dead because there is no room for people like that in the Republican party. For goodness sake, 2/5ths of the people running for the Democratic nomination were Republicans!

The "Republican orthodoxy" is a terrible idea and terrible politics. Our system is about finding common ground with our fellow citizens: it's instrumental to government. Politics is not a religion, and orthodoxy is always bad in politics, at least as it concerns the citizenry.

Fate

Actually, the problem is the tent is too big

.

Well, circus tents need to be big.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Actually, the problem is the tent is too big

.

Well, circus tents need to be big.

Har, har.

Look at your Democrats:

Hillary--may be indicted.
Crazy Uncle Bernie--the man with one pair of extra underwear.
O'Malley--the candidate whose claim to fame is that he was mayor of a city that nearly burned itself to the ground. Oh yeah, he was also the governor who passed a tax on rain.
Webb--a patriotic American who obviously has no place in the Democratic Party.
Chafee--who might be nuttier than Bernie.

Talk about a circus. All that's missing is . . . well, nothing.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

Actually, the problem is the tent is too big

.

Well, circus tents need to be big.

Har, har.

I can assure you that no one finds Ricky more annoying than I do, but I thought it was very funny. (How's that for a backhanded complement?)

Doctor Fate wrote:
Webb--a patriotic American who obviously has no place in the Democratic Party.

He's with the Dems because he has no place in the Republican party!

Looping this back to the start of the thread, Boehner is out because he compromised and actually believed in governing, making him a heretic to the keepers of the Republican orthodoxy. Heretic and orthodoxy are fine words for religion but terrible for politics. I'm not sure if this near religious fervor that's gripped the Republicans is good or bad for the Republican party, but I'm pretty sure it's bad for America.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Webb--a patriotic American who obviously has no place in the Democratic Party.

He's with the Dems because he has no place in the Republican party!

He served honorably during Vietnam. In the DNC, that makes him a nut.

Looping this back to the start of the thread, Boehner is out because he compromised and actually believed in governing, making him a heretic to the keepers of the Republican orthodoxy.

Incorrect. He refused to negotiate for ANYTHING and caved into virtually every Obama demand. Even now, pass a budget without PP funding and force Obama to veto it. If the government shuts down, it will be because of Obama's veto--but Boehner won't do it. What exactly is the House? Apparently, it's a compliant branch of government.

Heretic and orthodoxy are fine words for religion but terrible for politics. I'm not sure if this near religious fervor that's gripped the Republicans is good or bad for the Republican party, but I'm pretty sure it's bad for America.

Rubbish. Obama won't negotiate. When Boehner can't convince the other country club Republicans to throw in with him, Obama simply issues executive orders. We live in a monarchy.

rayjay

(How's that for a backhanded complement?)

Thank you. And I'd like to compliment you on your attention to spelling.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

(How's that for a backhanded complement?)

Thank you. And I'd like to compliment you on your attention to spelling.

Come on Ricky, you're the last person on these boards who should be calling someone out on that.

geo

Come on Ricky, you're the last person on these boards who should be calling someone out on that.

Do you not recognize ironic sarcasm?
Ray had spent some time criticizing, what he though was my grammar errors, instead of addressing the content... So ...the gentle jibe

Doctor Fate wrote:Incorrect. He refused to negotiate for ANYTHING and caved into virtually every Obama demand. Even now, pass a budget without PP funding and force Obama to veto it. If the government shuts down, it will be because of Obama's veto--but Boehner won't do it. What exactly is the House? Apparently, it's a compliant branch of government.

Perhaps he's representing the Republicans who believe that keeping the gov't open is more important than the PP issue. That may be most of them, that may be some of them. I don't know. Oh, you think that you can't be a Republican and believe that? Please see my previous comment on orthodoxy.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Incorrect. He refused to negotiate for ANYTHING and caved into virtually every Obama demand. Even now, pass a budget without PP funding and force Obama to veto it. If the government shuts down, it will be because of Obama's veto--but Boehner won't do it. What exactly is the House? Apparently, it's a compliant branch of government.

Perhaps he's representing the Republicans who believe that keeping the gov't open is more important than the PP issue. That may be most of them, that may be some of them. I don't know. Oh, you think that you can't be a Republican and believe that? Please see my previous comment on orthodoxy.

Right, so try looking at it from the other perspective: In light of those videos, is keeping PP funded by the Federal government worth shutting down the government? That would be the effect of an Obama veto.

rickyp wrote:geo

Come on Ricky, you're the last person on these boards who should be calling someone out on that.

Do you not recognize ironic sarcasm?
Ray had spent some time criticizing, what he though was my grammar errors, instead of addressing the content... So ...the gentle jibe

you mean "thought"

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:geo

Come on Ricky, you're the last person on these boards who should be calling someone out on that.

Do you not recognize ironic sarcasm?
Ray had spent some time criticizing, what he though was my grammar errors, instead of addressing the content... So ...the gentle jibe

you mean "thought"

That has been a word RickyP has trouble with... [/gentle jibe]

Doctor Fate wrote:
Right, so try looking at it from the other perspective: In light of those videos, is keeping PP funded by the Federal government worth shutting down the government? That would be the effect of an Obama veto.

Lots of republicans were fiscally conservative and socially liberal and could care less about the PP issue. Again, to my point on orthodoxy, you keep supporting my contention.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Right, so try looking at it from the other perspective: In light of those videos, is keeping PP funded by the Federal government worth shutting down the government? That would be the effect of an Obama veto.

Lots of republicans were fiscally conservative and socially liberal and could care less about the PP issue. Again, to my point on orthodoxy, you keep supporting my contention.

I don't know anyone who has actually watched two minutes of those videos and supports public funding of PP. They are clearly guilty of marketing baby parts. That's not "orthodoxy;" it's decency.