Yeah, Mr Boehner, you are right. You gonna sit there like a bitch or are you gonna try to do something about it? Trust me, you would try to do it too if the situation was reversed.
Now repubs in general have got a choice, they need to change their positions to become more relevant/popular or they need to do a better job in selling their existing positions. Neither of which has to do with the Dems. Change comes from within.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be 2 parties or that the Repubs have to be one of them. You want to be relevant, you better be willing to fight & nail to get there again. You better figure out a way because nobody’s gonna do it for you.
It’s a brutal world out there. Quit your bitching and hand wringing and adapt.
I’m a Brit with a vague understanding of who Mr. Boehner is (Congress’s only Orange-American, right?). I’d like to know what this pit is about, but not to the extent of googling anything. Could someone explain, please? As in, on what occasion did Mr. Boehner imply or state that Obama was trying to annihilate Republicans, and what reasoning did he give for such implication/assertion?
I sometimes forget how stupid most of the leftist posters on these boards are.
Boehner wasn’t whining and he was spot on. Obama put out a liberal wet dream in his inaugural, and the simple truth is aside from the things that can be done via executive order a large portion of it will in fact be impossible with a Republican House. Obama has one more Congress as President after the 113th, you can bet he’ll use all the political muscle he has to try and take back the House and make the 114th a Democratic controlled body. I see no reason anyone should doubt that, it’s what you’re supposed to do if you’re a Democrat President (same if the situation was reversed and you’re a Republican President.)
Also, the reality is our system will have two parties and it is structurally inclined to two parties. No, the GOP doesn’t have to be one of the two, and parties have replaced one another in the past. I think modern politics, with deep entrenchment now into the extant two parties means whatever changing the GOP does will result in, at some point in the indeterminate future (anywhere from 2 to 25 years or more, who knows) simply becoming a different party with the same name. There are two many structural problems with trying to truly replace one of the current parties so internal reform will just take over the existing party.
an·ni·hi·late [ ə n ə làyt ]
destroy something: to destroy something completely, especially so that it ceases to exist
defeat somebody: to defeat somebody easily and decisively
be destroyed in particle collision: to be mutually destroyed when a particle collides with a corresponding antiparticle
It can easily mean exactly that without it being silly or stupid. This is part and parcel of some of the mouthbreathers here on the SDMB wanting to find “stupidity” anytime a Republican opens their mouth. It was overblown rhetoric but no technical violation of the language and no evidence he was suggesting annihilate to mean “total destruction.” That’s one possible meaning of the word.
Boehner’s an imbecile, preaching to his choir. The very last thing Obama wants is the annihilation of the Republican Party, because that might lead to something stronger and more viable rising up in its place. What he does want, I’d imagine, is to weaken it, to marginalize just a little more, to keep them gasping on the end of his fishing pole, trying to win elections with a decreasing proportion of rich, white jingoists and racists for a few more generations. Why annihilate? They’re his best bet for the future of the Democratic party.
Back atcha. You do seem to have difficulty here grasping that the political discussions on this board are not as accurately categorizable as liberal-conservative as realist-fantasist.
What parts, for example, do you classify as a “wet dream” instead of simple realism and responsibility? :dubious:
Only if the Republican caucus remains united in loyalty to the obstructive absolutist approach with which they have so comprehensively failed, with no more than single digit number of them either recognizing their responsibilities to the nation or recognizing their desire to be re-elected by the people whose interests their party’s position does not align with. How confident are you of that?
Actually, think he wants a Republican party that he can work with, and will bring useful ideas to the table, rather than one that game-says everything he says, even if it’s on something they had previously supported.
