What Has Republican Policy Actually Done For You?

Intlwaters

Help Support Intlwaters:

FloridaScaleBoater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
6,940
I just looked it up. The military has a mandatory retirement age of the first of the month following your 62nd birthday.

Why don’t politicians have the same rule?

If that was the law, we wouldn’t have these senile old politicians like Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi (just to name a few) trying to run this great country.
Speaking of the Military, when I signed the dotted line back in 1979, I was told that if I made it to retirement (20 years) my & my wife's medical/dental needs would be taken care of for the rest of my life.
Yeh, that didn't happen!
Can't really complain about the cost of the insurance provided, except dental/vision is not included.
My point is, I have to pay for it. And these useless POS's in Washington get it for FREE' for life.
Retirement pay,,,, it was always a joke while in, you make it to 20, they'll pay you 1/2 of what you can't live on now!
Career politicians make one hell of a retirement.
 

Blair Warren

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
216
I just looked it up. The military has a mandatory retirement age of the first of the month following your 62nd birthday.

Why don’t politicians have the same rule?

If that was the law, we wouldn’t have these senile old politicians like Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi (just to name a few) trying to run this great country.
Interesting.....I'll go along with ya on this one as long as you include the Republican Fossils as well...McConnell, Grassley, Shelby, Inhofe plus others.

BTW the average age of a Senator is 64.3 and a house member is 58.4 years.

Trump is 76, he'd be out as well as Biden.
 

Steve Seebold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,192
I couldn’t agree more. I see absolutely no reason why ANY politicIan should serve till they’re in their 80’s. I don’t care who they are.

Trump was too old the first time. He’ll be ancient if he runs in 2024.

At this point, the best thing about Trump is his gorgeous wife.
 

Tom Foley

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
6,550
I couldn’t agree more. I see absolutely no reason why ANY politicIan should serve till they’re in their 80’s. I don’t care who they are.

Trump was too old the first time. He’ll be ancient if he runs in 2024.

At this point, the best thing about Trump is his gorgeous wife.
You are an idiot .... my god .
 

bzubee

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
4,577
I just looked it up. The military has a mandatory retirement age of the first of the month following your 62nd birthday.

Why don’t politicians have the same rule?

If that was the law, we wouldn’t have these senile old politicians like Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi (just to name a few) trying to run this great country.
Our ancient scouts I
 

Tom Foley

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
6,550
I couldn’t agree more. I see absolutely no reason why ANY politicIan should serve till they’re in their 80’s. I don’t care who they are.

Trump was too old the first time. He’ll be ancient if he runs in 2024.

At this point, the best thing about Trump is his gorgeous wife.
Trump is plenty sharp to take the helm again . This bungling bag of pedophile alzhiemers waste we have now is a complete sham , his second in command a close second . And I say as I always have , is this all we have ? Is this the pinnacle of leadership available out there ? You don't want a mid 70 year old president well where are all the candidates ? They are making a cushy living as a career politician and don't want a target on their back .
 

Steve Seebold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,192
Trump is plenty sharp to take the helm again . This bungling bag of pedophile alzhiemers waste we have now is a complete sham , his second in command a close second . And I say as I always have , is this all we have ? Is this the pinnacle of leadership available out there ? You don't want a mid 70 year old president well where are all the candidates ? They are making a cushy living as a career politician and don't want a target on their back .
So far as far as I’m concerned, Ron DeSantis is the best candidate so far.
 

Hydro Junkie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
5,452
And I would agree, to a point. The problem is that he's not looking to move up to "the big chair" just yet. While I don't think he's afraid of it, I don't think he wants to get the target placed on him that DJT and family is now having to deal with. I would be surprised, at this juncture anyway, if DJT doesn't throw his hat back into the ring for 2024 to go after those that have gone after him and his family.
 

Steve Seebold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,192
I agree but I don't want to lose him as our governor here in FL !
You guys ask what has the Republican Party done for me!

Well, let me see, because of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party took over, gas prices are higher than they’ve ever been, inflation is higher than it’s been in 40 years, I see empty shelves in grocery stores, the democrats have gotten us on the verge of getting involved in the Russia/Ukraine war, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v Wade. I’m sure given enough time, I could find a lot more.

Sure DJT might not have been our best president, but there was absolutely no doubt about what was on his mind.
 

Mark Grannis

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
383
I'm surprised I read all that!
I recognize way more Republicans having a preservation concept of the Constitution while more Democrats consider the Constitution an obstacle to overcome. The Constitution is an amazing document, for it contains a foresight based in principles of a limited government.

I would prefer all our politicians would practice more of a Laissez-faire mindset. I can hold trust in an ultra conservative, Constitutional trusting American than those willing to abandon the Constitution. There are means to amend the constitution; however the process does not happen whimsically for a reason. Truly important issues get addressed promptly. Pet concerns struggle as they should. The last thirty or thirty five years have had too much self interest lacking Constitutional accuracy. We are currently way past the original concept of the Constitution.

Here is my answer to the thread's question. Most Republican policy to me is a hope the best country ever in time will be available in the future for the individual American. Dems policies are all about citizen control in most every aspect of the individual's being. This is a monumental difference.
 

kyleboyer

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2018
Messages
38
I'm surprised I read all that!
I recognize way more Republicans having a preservation concept of the Constitution while more Democrats consider the Constitution an obstacle to overcome. The Constitution is an amazing document, for it contains a foresight based in principles of a limited government.

I would prefer all our politicians would practice more of a Laissez-faire mindset. I can hold trust in an ultra conservative, Constitutional trusting American than those willing to abandon the Constitution. There are means to amend the constitution; however the process does not happen whimsically for a reason. Truly important issues get addressed promptly. Pet concerns struggle as they should. The last thirty or thirty five years have had too much self interest lacking Constitutional accuracy. We are currently way past the original concept of the Constitution.

Here is my answer to the thread's question. Most Republican policy to me is a hope the best country ever in time will be available in the future for the individual American. Dems policies are all about citizen control in most every aspect of the individual's being. This is a monumental difference.
You should study James Madison a bit more, he was the main architect to the US constitution. He did not want the Bill of Rights. The constitution was created by the property/slave owning class for the property/slave owning class to protect the "opulent minority from the (propertyless) majority". In fact the revolutionary war was started not because of a tea tax, but because of a possible law coming from England that would of made slavery illegal, and the slave owners saw it as the government taking their property. Private property rights are an anti-right, as it subjugates those who do not own property (here is where the dipshits who think their house is "private property" chime in).

And there is no such thing as Laissez-faire, the corporations control the government, where it is Laissez-faire for those corporations, but corporate interest and government backed regulations on the individual and small business....
 

Mark Grannis

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
383
You should study James Madison a bit more, he was the main architect to the US constitution. He did not want the Bill of Rights. The constitution was created by the property/slave owning class for the property/slave owning class to protect the "opulent minority from the (propertyless) majority". In fact the revolutionary war was started not because of a tea tax, but because of a possible law coming from England that would of made slavery illegal, and the slave owners saw it as the government taking their property. Private property rights are an anti-right, as it subjugates those who do not own property (here is where the dipshits who think their house is "private property" chime in).

And there is no such thing as Laissez-faire, the corporations control the government, where it is Laissez-faire for those corporations, but corporate interest and government backed regulations on the individual and small business....


This thread can't handle 246+ years of American history. Your use of Madison (who still signed) is interesting. Were you attempting to diminish the value and concepts of the Constitution? Madison was not the only signer who had strong reservations. These men were risking everything by signing this document. No document since the early 1200's Magna Carta in an effort to limit governance had been more monumental.

This thread asked a question...I answered it for me as instructed. Actually there is such a thing as Laissez-faire or it would not have a definition. I did not claim the branches of our government practices it! I just wish they would practice it more often for consistency in both economic and social issues.
 

Hydro Junkie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
5,452
This video, while it didn't surprise me, did show how much the FBI was used, be it intentional or not, to hide the corruption of the Biden family and those in charge:
 

Brad Christy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
1,334
1. The boarders aren’t open, neither party wants to open the boarders.

2. Transgender? WTF do you even mean by this? The existence of transgender people has nothing to do with a political party. They have existed well before the United States or it’s political parties. Acknowledging that and letting people live their own lives in a way they want to live them SHOULD fit with what republicans claim to be about, freedom, liberty, small government, but the truth is they aren’t really about that at all, they are only about freedoms for people who look, act, think, and feel the exact same way they do and punishing anyone who doesn’t.

3. Gun control… Do you know what “well regulated” means?
JC,

1. They absolutely are. And YES, the Democratic Plantation Party wants it that way, or they would do something about it. Our children dying of Fentanyl poisoning and migrating children dying in the heat or drowning in the river doesn't seem to bother them enough, though. All they care about are the hopeful future voters.

2. Nobody cares if the LGBTQRSTLMNOP community want to live their lives however they want to. And that's the problem. Nobody cares. And that drives them farqing loopy. The real issue is that they want us to pretend they are what they feel like on any given day, and it's creating problems for people that shouldn't have to create space in their lives for or make sacrifices to appease. HIS name is William. HE is NOT championing women's rights. HE is CHEATING. And it's costing REAL women their scholarships. And to add to that, if some dude follows my daughter into the bathroom, swinging dork, he's coming out feet first. Women shouldn't have to forfeit their comfort and privacy because others' aren't satisfied with how they were born. Sorry.

3. "Well regulated", in the vernacular of the time, meant "operating smoothly". Which would have required that every able bodied man be equipped to be a part of the militia. Every single Article of the Bill of Rights prescribes an INDIVIDUAL right, and denies the federal government capacity to encroach on said rights, including placing any obligation for exercise of those rights. Every. Single. One. Including the 2nd Amendment. Not a single Article of the Bill of Rights prescribes or protects any authority of the government over its people, nor do any of them prescribe any obligation upon the individual for access to these rights. Not. That. First. One. Not even the 2nd Amendment. The Federalist Papers are very clear on the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment. It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the Bill of Privileges.

Thanks. Brad.
Titan Racing Components
BlackJack Hydros
Model Machine and Precision LLC
 

Brad Christy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
1,334
She's a lawyer who employs a paltry 8 other people, hardly a "corporate business owner". Regardless you are way wrong with "corporate business owners" not being leftist. You can start with Zuckerberg and Bezos..........
Don,

What he means is that, if you're not an outright socialist, you can't be a Leftist. And socialists can't enslave.... I mean.... employ people.

Thanks. Brad.
Titan Racing Components
BlackJack Hydros
Model Machine and Precision LLC
 
Top