But it was the progressives who told me Bush would want to suspend elections
I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover
Ok, Sparky, look here. I’ll ignore the whole subverting the nature of the republic aspect of your stupid statement and address the reality: Congress is pretty much why the country is in the economic shitter. Letting them run loose and even more unaccountable is like trusting the pyromaniac 8 year-old up the street to watch your collection of gas cans and fireworks.
September 28th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Suspension of elections is as bright a line as you’ll ever get.
September 28th, 2011 at 10:16 am
In other countries, this is what happens right before they start pushing people against a wall and shooting them.
The problem with the State killing us is, we have all the guns. I hope she doesn’t get what she’s asking for.
September 28th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Well, she does want to cancel House elections only, and the majority in the House is (R), so she has that going for her. I wonder if anyone has told her yet.
September 28th, 2011 at 10:40 am
I’m all in favor of suspending the elections. House *and* senate. No election, no one in office. No one in office, no new laws.
Of course, no old laws repealed either but they don’t do much of that anyway.
September 28th, 2011 at 11:03 am
The Lib-Cong should be reminded that there is a rifle behind every blade of grass. Additionally, many of us have……skills.
September 28th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Rope, tree – some assembly required.
September 28th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Plesae do not call them progressives. That just encourages them to continue hi-jacking the language.
September 28th, 2011 at 11:54 am
It does show that voting is not completely useless. They still fear the ballot box enough to want to ban it.
But as Lyle at Joe Huffman said that they’re being this open about it is a very bad sign.
September 28th, 2011 at 11:54 am
She is a dem. She fears the 2012 elections for good reason.
Comitus: She knows that we will get more than a mere majority in one house in a few years.
September 28th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
In 2012, we’ll have a Republican president, Republican House and Republican Senate. And we’ll still get tax hikes, increased spending, rule-by-waiver, punishment of independence.
September 28th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
HL: “Progressive” is pretty much old hat at this point – and the term as applied to a political position has always stood for the same jackassery, so I’ll give them a pass there.
It’s not like “Liberal”, which once actually meant a significantly different thing than it does now.
September 28th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Sig,
I realize that. But they chose the name because they think “who could be against progress?” If they chose the name “Party for Progressively Larger Government” then I’d be fine with it. “Progressive” in no way indicates a philosophy. At least the words “conservative” and “liberal” indicate a strategy in regards to the application of something, namely governement.
If we have to call them “Progressive” then I demand Conservatives be called “Prosperitives”, because who could be against Prosperity? Well, aside from Liberals.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
As a former 8 year old pyromanic, I can attest to this analogy.
September 28th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
The left has a well established habit of accusing us of wanting to do what they want to do.
I use “Progressive” (capital “P”) to distinguish them from communists who openly advocate a People’s Revolution, in much the same way I’d use “progressive” to describe death by cancer as opposed to a sudden death in a car crash or something. Progressives believe in progressive steps toward communism, so it works. The function of the Republican Party, it turns out, whether they ever understood it or not, has been to make Progressivism work by keeping it slow enough that we’ve never gotten alarmed and put a stop to it.
September 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
And guess who, recently, vetoed a Voter ID bill
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278622/suspending-congressional-elections-vote-suppression-its-worst-hans-von-spakovsky
“North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.”
Unless the economy is in a recession. Then you can ban the whole thing.
September 29th, 2011 at 1:36 am
+1 dustydog
It’s really a one party system. They provide a distraction by dividing us down a party line. We should really be debating issues and pushing for major reforms. Instead so much of the country is busy fretting over the letter D or R, or other ‘fringe’ issues.
Right now I distrust both parties equally.