default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Be positive, and don’t be stupid

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:00 am

Why are Republicans known as "the stupid party"? Because they are the stupid party! Barack Obama did not "win" re-election. The stupid party did not get out the vote. Many Tea Party zealots (I am a Tea Party supporter) refused to vote for Romney, despite the fact that in a two-man race, if you do not vote for your guy, the other guy wins! Duh. Now we have Obama again.

The stupid party does not have the guts to stand up for what their constituents believe. They, like Democrats, just want to be re-elected. The Democrats are much more clever at getting that done. Dishonesty does not bother Democrats and liberals. Do you really believe Harry Reid has a conscience? Do you not know how corrupt Nancy Pelosi is? Republicans still believe in the tooth fairy.

Why do you suppose black conservatives are demonized? They won't sell their souls for petty politics. They still believe in integrity. Do you believe Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson care one whit about integrity — or black people, for that matter? What's in it for them?

The point is, do not lose faith. Do not go along to get along. We can stop Obama from destroying the greatest nation in history. I believe John Boehner is trying to do that.

If only the stupid party would show some unity and some backbone. At least, the stupid party would not try to put John Kerry in as Secretary of State. Only Democrats are stupid enough to honor traitors. Oh, by the way, where is Jane Fonda these days? Being honored by Democrats, of course.

Continue to think positive and play to win!

Jerry Osgood


Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Christina Welch posted at 1:25 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    I have enjoyed our conversation as well. And I agree with much of your assessment, especially of Nixon (what a trip he indeed was!) I have definitely read about 1968 and I appreciate your personal account of it--adds so much more than a textbook can. I look forward to your personal recollections in the future.. A personal narrative adds so much more to my understanding of history--thanks!

  • Mike Adams posted at 1:04 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1560

    Christina, Nixon was much more progressive than he is given credit for.
    While he wasn't anti-civil rights by any means, I think privately, like many politicians of the day, he didn't think much of minorities. 1968 was a time of great change (if you're old enough to remember, or if not, have read of it), anti-war, anti-establishment, the murders of two prominent Americans, one who probably would have been elected president instead of Nixon had he lived, long hair, psychidelic music, my parents and grandparent's generation were definitely looking for the re-establishment of order. I remember the Chicago police riot was seen as a positive step in that vein, although I am horrified to see it today on film. 1968 sucked from Jan.1 almost all the way to New Year's eve. If it hadn't been for the music and Apollo 8, the whole damn 365 days could have been s*^t-canned and no one would care.
    Fortunately, Nixon's public actions I think encouraged continued change in the direction toward equality of all, even though he may have come up short.

    In spite of being paranoid, profane, and just plain weird, Richard Nixon I think was one of our best Presidents. He could never be elected today.
    I am proud to say I voted for him in '72, like I did Reagan in the '76 primary as well as the primary and general elections of '80 and '84. Republican's WERE different then, a much better party for the whole country. It's sad to see the direction it has taken since '92, the year I left it and I doubt I will ever return. And it's not just me, but probably millions of other former republicans which the new party actively pushes away.

    It has been very pleasant talking with you. A welcome change to what has often time goes on here.

    Also, I can't figure out the direct response thing either. Sometimes I end up 3 or 4 posts away from where I thought it was going to go. Simon Birch: Work on that!! While your at it, bring back the Monday paper.

  • Christina Welch posted at 7:44 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Mike, I don't know why, but the system won't let me respond directly to your comment, so I have to do it here. Yes, I would acknowledge that the Democratic party of today is not the same as that which existed pre-1970. I wouldn't be surprised about politicians being affiliated with the KKK, especially in the 1920s, when they had a major resurgence (that died down by decade's end, thank God.) As for Nixon, I don't think you can really consider him anti-civil rights. Nixon actually pushed afirmative action forward with his Philadelphia plan beyond what even LBJ had done. As for Trent Lott, the history books haven't yet recorded his life for posterity....

  • Mike Adams posted at 5:45 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1560

    Perhaps I spoke too quickly regarding your initial post. But the statements you were making initially are a staple on conservative talk radio. Reference Robert "Sheets" Byrd, Limbaugh's often reference to Senator Robert Byrd's participation in the ku klux klan. It wasn't unusual for politicians in the early 1900's to the 1960's to have to have some affiliation with the klan if they wanted to be elected to office. Here's a possible factoid about presidents who were reported to be members of the kkk: Harding, Wilson, McKinley, Coolidge, and Truman.

    URL: http://able2know.org/topic/99462-1
    Now I'm not sure how reliable this info is and some who comment on it believe it's a kkk front.
    I agree, southern democrats were almost as a block, against civil rights. However, you should acknowledge that the democratic party of today is not the democratic party that existed pre-1970. My reference to Wallace was that he came out for civil rights (in mid to late 70's) and more or less disavowed his support for anti-civil rights earlier in his career.

    The big flipping of the poles gained hold in 1968 election of Richard Nixon who ran on a "law and order" plank, a stance many historians claim is code for anti-civil rights.
    Again, I go back to Trent Lott. If he could point to anything he did in the senate that could have shown that he wasn't anti-civil rights, why didn't he or any of his supporters bring it up? There wasn't anything in his time in congress that he could proudly show. Another factoid: continuous republican yapping about how Trent Lott was being attacked by liberals over the issue. The story really only had legs for 3 or 4 days and liberals were letting it drop. Only continued harping on it, primarily by Limbaugh, kept it in the news costing Lott his chairmanship.

  • Christina Welch posted at 10:15 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Mike, I'm not quite sure about your response to me...
    First off, I am not a conservative nor do I get my information from conservative talk radio or websites, so I totally don't get that condescension from you. Secondly, George Wallace was a Democrat until he formed his own party in 1968, so I don't quite understand that reference either. If you want to talk historically about civil rights legislation, you can trace the first attempts back to 1866 when the Republicans tried to do away with the black codes established by southern (Democrat) governments. Now, much of this was more for their own political gain rather than really caring about the plight of the freedmen, but still, it starts there. As for the 1950s and 60s, the first piece of legislation came about in 1957 under Eisenhower (Republican) with a Democratic Congress; it set up a Civil Rights Commission and was really pretty weak. JFK tried to push for legislation, but was blocked by the southern democrats in Congress. It was not until his assassination that LBJ could push through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 in honor of his memory. After a 54 day filibuster by Southern democrats (and one Republican, I believe) the bill was passed. This is the history, Mike, and I don't know what you mean by "polar shift between Democrats and Republicans" in reference to it. The fact is that the mistreatment of African Americans in the South was mostly due to Democrats because that's the party that controlled the South then. That's history, not Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hanity, just history. But, it wasn't really a Democrat thing, Mike, it was a southern thing.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:00 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    [sleeping]... http://youtu.be/45apySb26AE

  • Mike Adams posted at 6:27 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1560

    Actually, Christina, during the mid to late 60's, there was a polar shift between the Democrats and republicans in the south as LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act through congress. Eventually even George Wallace came around (he blocked the door to the Universitiy of Alabama form African American students I think it was). I know it remains popular lore among conservatives, but you really should have gone back and looked at you US history of the south. I don't blame you, you probably got this information from some conservative website or reading misinformation that commonly occurs here on these boards.

    If you require further evidence, just go back and find the number of introduced bills that would have leveled the field for Blacks first, and then other minority groups and tally how many were introduced by republicans and how many were introduced by Democrats. Even Trent Lott couldn't list even one bill he introduced or supported that increased civil rights when he mis-spoke at Strom Thurman's birthday celebration. Not a single piece.

  • Christina Welch posted at 3:42 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Actually, Mike, when African Americans were subject to the segregation and denial of voting rights after the Civil War and into the 20th century, it was due to the Jim Crow laws passed by Democrats. Historically, the South has been a stronghold for Democrats up until about the 1980s or so. The 15th Amendment was needed because of the southern Democrats policies, not the Republicans. (Although after the Compromise of 1877, the Republicans certainly didn't do much to try and help African Americans either.)

  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:15 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1342

    The Tea Party doesn't know what's going on either.

  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:10 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1342

    reps v. dems
    Hooked line and sinker.

  • Mike Adams posted at 5:06 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1560

    Maybe their aren't any (or very few) liberal factions. You have the conservatives which include normal rational republicans, socially and fiscally conservative, moderate and you also have (sorry to say) the Tea Party (which is mostly made up of fiscally focused republicans), and then as you go right, you get nuttier and more nuttier who don't vote republican but there lacks any qualified group to place them.

    On the other side, you have all the people who aren't in the above paragragh which are classed as liberals I guess. Liberals generally believe that government should help those not as fortunate and level government operations to include those who are disinfranchised, like minorities, immigrants, children in poor school districts, African Americans who aren't allowed to vote. I mean they had to do an ammendment to the Constitution so Blacks in the south could vote! Why?

    I'm not familiar with personal attacks on Bush 43, probably because I tend to listen to talk radio (which is almost entirely conservative). Or maybe those allegations are at least partially true. He did announce that he had a "C" average (I believe at Harvard or Yale commencment, the one he went to). He did get into the Air National Guard even though there were many more qualified candidates waiting. He is at least partially responsible for getting us into a war with Iraq by not vetting the information he was recieving and playing to the American people.

    I think it's Bush 41 who is pulling all the strings now, at least if you listen to the conspiratorial nuts. They do have a picture of him at the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of 11/22/63 with a look on his face that he just ordered President Kennedy shot. Or it could have been some younger Bush look alike leaning against a brick wall anywhere in the country. I find it amazing that they (conspiracy nuts) can tell you exactly who is in every picture taken , where it was taken, and why it was taken, and what it is evidence of. Of course there is nothing to substantiate their claims, but they don't need that.

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:17 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2106

    Great response Mike. Thanks for an intillectual discussion.

    I have two counters. First you said that Conseratives are not independent minded. But it seems there are MORE conservative factions than liberal factions. More Conservive political parties that Liberal. That is what I was refering to.

    Second, when it comes to Liberal attacks on conservatives they are JUST as repetitive as conservatives are against Liberals. It has just been so many years since there was a republican president that the social media atmosphere has changed. (yes four years is a long time when it comes to social media changes). But when Bush was president I observed the same repeditive attacks on him. He was so dumb for getting a c average, he was a draft dodger, he had others pulling his strings, he forced us into a war. We STILL hear those statement from some HERE when ever conservative presidents are brought up.

    Anyway. Thanks for the great response again.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:00 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    "Average" was used not to denote your words, Mr. Paglia, but to emphasize what you seemed to express in your original comment, i.e., if you add up all the qualities that Libertarians have and divide by 2 you would get an overall moderate position.

    Libertarians embrace extremes of both the left and right, "meshed" as you stated, but by no means could they be considered "moderate" as you stated in your first comment.

    I'm surprised that, since Libertarians embrace same-sex marriage and many embrace abortion, that you would go the Libertarian route.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:50 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Agree, Mr. Adams!

  • Christina Welch posted at 12:31 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    I agree with much that you have to say, and I also sympathize with many Libertarian ideas (although not all.) The problem is that America has always been a two party system, and based on this tradition as well as the way the electoral system was set up (winner-take-all,single-member districts) we will continue to be led by Republicans and Democrats. The Framers of the Constitution didn't make any provisions for political parties, and they certainly didn't intend for parties to be so important in the governing of this nation. If we really want anything to change, then we need to address the issue constitutionally. Single-member districts discourage minor parties; perhaps more of a proportional representaion approach (like in a Parliamentary system) would help. Alas, any proposal to amend the Constitution must begin at the national level, and I doubt the members of Congress would willingly let go of their power.

  • Mike Adams posted at 8:52 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1560

    Kevin: I think your analysis of the republican party is mostly accurate. However I would challenge your assessment " Conservatives are independent minded, not willing to follow just because the party says so...".
    I have never met an independent minded conservative and I grew up in a large extended family of conservatives. Over the decades, their arguments have basically been the Jerry Osgood type. It didn't matter which Democrat was in office, it was always the same criticisms, with just a change of the name of the Democratic politician. Occasionally up-dated with new, and as always, inaccurate "facts": Clinton shut down LAX to get a hair cut, Johnson and his antiamerican civil rights programs, Vietnam, picking up his dogs by their ears, Obama was born in Keyna, Obama was born in (insert name of country here...do not enter "United States"), the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster, and on and on. They always used the same weak, accusitorial, personal attacks that the conservative/republican participants here use as well as those who routinely get LTE published.

    As I said sometime back, letters like Osgood's do not sway anyone's opinion of a political figure or program. It's just plain old republican b#$%*ing. I suppose it's theraputic, I would like to think that it gets it out of their system, but clearly, the LNS's decision to print only republican complaints about any democrat must be rooted somewhere in the building on Church St. Their lax control over the content of the letters they allow to be printed says it all.

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:56 pm on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2106

    I didn't say "Average", don't know why you put that word in quotes like I had said it. I said "one that meshed aspects of the extremes of both fanatical sides would be very strong in todays political field."

    "meshed" is very different from "Averaged". Everything you said about the Libertarian party shows that they are a MESHED political party, reflecting aspects from both parties.

    "The very definition of "race" is "competition." Any candidate outside the R's and D's simply cannot "compete.""

    Yes, it is such a shame to. That our political leaders ahve so well taught their followers that it is a race as defined as "any contest or competition, especially to achieve superiority:" Thank you for confirming my long standing statements that the plotical scene is no longer an effort to do what is best for the country but rather a competition to prove superiority.

  • Todd Cronin posted at 2:17 pm on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Todd Posts: 143

    (submitted for simon birch's approval)

    Wow jerry osgood, what can I say other then
    tea parties are for old ladies and
    for little girls............

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:15 pm on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Anyone who honestly believes that the Libertarian Party is either "conservative" or "moderate" needs to do a little more research.

    "Moderate" doesn't mean taking the "average" of two extremes - it means taking no extreme viewpoints - left or right.

    Libertarians believe in minimal government interference, i.e., small government, no regulation, isolationism, etc., which are considered fairly far right positions. They also believe in same-sex marriage, the legalization of marijuana, separation of church & state, and open immigration, etc., which are considered fairly far left positions.

    Moderate? Not in the least.

    Just because one has the opportunity to vote for a candidate other than a Republican or a Democrat does not, in reality, mean it is NOT a two party race. The very definition of "race" is "competition." Any candidate outside the R's and D's simply cannot "compete."

    The statement: "Conservatives are independent minded, not willing to follow just because the party says so, where the Liberals follow with no independent thought," is just plain silly.

    Since the Republican Party represents the mainstream of conservative thinking, conservatives are most likely to follow - they will definitely not veer off course for a candidate who wants to legalize marijuana and permit homosexuals to marry.

    Likewise, the Democratic Party represents the mainstream of liberal thinking and liberals would most likely not consider issues such as deregulation and isolationism viable policies.

    Now, if one is refering, in the first part of that statement, to fringe movements such as the TEA Party which claims to be "non-partisan" (a joke), who desire to stand their ground and not compromise, then one would soon realize that this is a movement that will soon find its demise (which is what is happening with the TP) because mainstream conservatives' goal, i.e., the goal of the Republican Party is, first and foremost, to survive, even if they have to throw the TEA overboard to prevent their ship from sinking.

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:38 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2106

    Since this letters OTHER points were already addressed let me bring out a different one:

    From the letter:
    "Many Tea Party zealots (I am a Tea Party supporter) refused to vote for Romney, despite the fact that in a two-man race, if you do not vote for your guy, the other guy wins!"

    This was NOT a two man race. There were a few people in the race. This kind of "I'm not voting FOR a candidate but against the other one." mentality that Osgood seems to believe in is one of the reasons why we no longer have political leaders who believe in this country but rather ones that love the power.

    This is not a "right-wing nut" issue. I have heard the same mentality from both sides of the spectrum. The only difference is that the "conservative" vote is split among several parties where the "liberal" vote is consolidated. This can be read a couple different ways. Either the Conservatives are splintered where the liberals are unified. OR the Conservatives are independent minded, not willing to follow just because the party says so, where the Liberals follow with no independent thought. I guess it all depends on your political loyalties.

    Personally I think a strong Moderate political party, one that meshed aspects of the extremes of both fanatical sides would be very strong in todays political field. That is why I like the Libertarian party.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:12 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I'm sure you do.

    Anything above that level of intellect would not be understood by said right-wingnuts, so it obviously must be brought down to the appropriate level as demonstrated by the letter writer's repeated use of "stupid."

    Set Tinky Winky free!!!!!!

  • John Kindseth posted at 9:43 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    John Kindseth Posts: 245

    ".....mostly from right-wingnuts..."

    Definitely an intellectualized analysis. I admire well-researched phraseology.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:12 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Well, here we go again. Another stellar letter printed in the LNS that only offers insults, attacks, and demeans people whose thinking is different from the letter writer's as "dishonest, "lacking integrity," and as "traitors."

    I personally am tired of these letters, mostly from right-wingnuts who have no other way to express themselves but with insults.

    I guess the letter writer in this case, who states he is a TEA Party supporter, did not get the memo:

    Many TEA Party reps in Congress did NOT support John Boehner's re-election as Speaker.
    Republicans FAVORED Kerry over Susan Rice's possible appointment as Secretary of State, if only because they were plotting to get another Republican spot in the Senate.
    All of that "Swift Boat" garbage about Kerry has already been disproven - not that Republicans would ever do ANYTHING dishonest.

  • Mike Adams posted at 7:24 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1560

    Well, at least he has the right idea, if not the right reasons. Maybe the RNC should re-name their motto from Grand Old Party to the Party of Exclusion.
    If you haven't noticed over the last 20+ years, the POE has become more homogenious (that means "alike", not sexual preference) and they require a smaller and smaller tent.


Recent Comments

Posted 1 hour ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

Ed the US economy is currently the strongest economy in the world. Do you wonder why you still need to play it down or is it that you are j…


Posted 5 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: Letter: I enjoy ‘Words to Live By’ in t…

Its not the sin that is in the world, but the sin that is in everyone of us.


Posted 5 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Steve Hansen: Driving through the gaunt…

Traffic laws are not much of a deterrent since ticketing rarely occurs. Sure, those who get ticketed think it's a deterrent, but that war…


Posted 18 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Driving through the gaunt…

I would suggest suicide as a reasonable alternative to a trip to Phoenix. There are worse things than death and that flea pit is one of th…


Posted 18 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Driving through the gaunt…

Yup Brian. That would be never. I am a gun owner and a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment both here (on numerous threads) and in rea…



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists