or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Republican Party is in flames and it's raining gasoline.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Republican Party is in flames and it's raining gasoline. - Page 2

post #41 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I just don't know if all of this bad news is really sinking that far into the public consciousness. If anyone had really been paying attention back in 2004 there's no way Bush would have won then. Ironically this Foley sex scandal, which is really a third-rate reason for a major political shift, seems more likely to me than anything else to help push things over the edge in the November elections to give control of the House to Democrats, and maybe, just maybe, the Senate too.

Yes, it's sad if this does it. I wish this Foley thing hadn't happened, because a political repudiation of failed policies is what is needed, not a live boy scandal that is, ultimately, not about the dreadful policies and dreadful governing that has been going on for the past 5 years.
post #42 of 302
But that's what the press and media want. Sex and lies. They're culpable in aiding and abetting the administration in getting what it wants because what they want is also in their best interest, ratings. With rating they get market share. And they make their Republican owners happy with higher stock prices.

War is good for ratings. 9/11 hysterial was good for ratings. Revenge policy is good for ratings. It's all sensational. And they're certainly NOT going to hold this administration accountable for what they, themselves are guilty of.

But now we've got a SEX SCANDAL on our hands. And the media cannot pass that up. It's too juicy.

Sex brings any authority down in this country. It's unfortunate. But it's true.

And Americans will eat it up.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #43 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston

So, is there anything else you see that Clinton did that made him such a bad president?

good points all, mike, but you fail to realize that reality and facts play little to no part in southside's reasoning.
post #44 of 302
It's not as if Foley was composing e-mails from the President. He'll disappear (wink, wink) and no one will care about him in 3 weeks after this story gets buried by Paris Hilton's latest "scandal".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #45 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic

You forgot one major thing my friend, Diebod E-voting machines. The Republicans will simply skew the numbers where necessary to keep control of both houses the same way they did it in 2004, Ohio anyone. Until there is a paper trail of some kind or at least acurate accountability you can bet your ass the Democratic party will always be the minority.

Not just the Diebold machines and their hackable, (appallingly written) software, but the lack of voting machines in polling stations in urban and black areas in swing states, compared to polling stations in rural and suburban precincts... that was one of the ways Ohio managed to deliver its electoral votes for Bush in 2004, without actually breaking the law, as such. It wasn't just machines from Diebold, but also those from Sequoia Systems and E,S&S, which were (are) also unreliable and hackable. But election fraud warrants an entire thread of its own... or several.

Two movies on the subject, both eye openers:
http://www.electile-dysfunction.com
http://www.votergate.org

Prediction:

The GOP will hang onto both houses, but only just. If there's an October surprise, (ie one that doesn't involve sex with pages, or another equally negative and sordid topic), then so much the better for them. It's still down to fear, fear and fear of terrorists, real or imaginary.. and as far as the US public is concerned, the GOP is the party of national security, even if the facts demonstrate that they are not.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #46 of 302
The troops are as happy as to be expected in times of war. They would be a lot happier if they were allowed to fight this war to win rather than fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #47 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo

Prediction:

The GOP will hang onto both houses, but only just. If there's an October surprise, (ie one that doesn't involve sex with pages, or another equally negative and sordid topic), then so much the better for them. It's still down to fear, fear and fear of terrorists, real or imaginary.. and as far as the US public is concerned, the GOP is the party of national security, even if the facts demonstrate that they are not.

Indeed. The people will not turn the country over to the Democrats. The problem is that the Democrats don't offer a reasonable alternative. When will Dems stop moaning and present a real plan?
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #48 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

F*ck your estate tax. There's a whole hell of a lot more at stake than that this election. We need Democratic control of at least one house of Congress so that we can file get some checks and balances going here.

I realize this sounds very alarmist, but I'm very worried that our democracy itself is at stake here. Bush is well on the way to establishing an imperial Presidency with unchecked executive power. Torture? Secret prisons? Warrantless wire tapping? All in the name of the "war on terror", an on-going condition which has no end, used to justify practically any presidential action whatsoever? The Republican-controlled Congress hasn't been doing the job it needs to do to keep the presidency from turning into near dictatorship.

I'd rather spend the next two years with nothing getting done in Washington at all except congressional investigations and the generation of a whole lot of legislation the President won't sign than risk another two years of sinking further into Bush's power grab.

I agree the world was a better place when congress was in gridlock most of the time
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #49 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski

Indeed. The people will not turn the country over to the Democrats. The problem is that the Democrats don't offer a reasonable alternative. When will Dems stop moaning and present a real plan?

The Democrats have offered plenty of plans on a multitude of issues, including Iraq. It's easier for the braindead to repeat dumbass talking points over and over "they have no plan". Say it loud enough and often enough and you believe your own lies.

Stop listening to those bullshit radio shows, do some frickin' research, and THINK for once.

Here's a question...WHAT IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN FOR IRAQ? WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN? WHAT IS THE EXIT STRATEGY? WHAT?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #50 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski

Indeed. The people will not turn the country over to the Democrats. The problem is that the Democrats don't offer a reasonable alternative. When will Dems stop moaning and present a real plan?

First off, extraction from Iraq is a reasonable alternative. Our presence there is not benefitting anyone, and all it is doing is making our country more vulnerable to attack. The idea that we are "fighting them there so we don't fight them here" is poppy-cock at best, and plain delusional at worst.

Also, extraction is a very good option, it isn't a weak option, unpatriotic, or treasonous. It is a responsible option, one that protects our soldiers from dying an needless death.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #51 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by running with scissors

good points all, mike, but you fail to realize that reality and facts play little to no part in southside's reasoning.

As true as that is, it also goes with what the current administration has been doing the entire time. Using distraction, half-truths or just plain FUD, and pointing the finger at someone else.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #52 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by running with scissors

good points all, mike, but you fail to realize that reality and facts play little to no part in southside's reasoning.

I don't know why anyone bothers arguing with Southside at all... I'm 99.9% sure that he's just playing a gross right-wing parody to get a rise out of people.

Of course, there are real people who are just as nuts as his parody, but there's such a calculated over-the-topness to most of what he says that I doubt his sincerity greatly.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #53 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

I bet if we look back, we will find this kind of thread before the 2004 election also... I hope that the Republicans pick up enough seats to push through a revocation of the estate tax - after that, I'm fine
with the Democrats picking up the presidency in 2008 (though, hopefully not enough seats to raise taxes).


Oh I don't think so. Things have come a long way since then!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #54 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski

Time will tell, but I anticipate our friends on the left being a bit disappointed in early November. I can already here the "The Republicans stole the elections" smack.




Jesus moe! Time's already telling!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 302
Thread Starter 
Things must be worse than I thought. Moe is the only winger even bothering to defend his party, and even that may be some kind of obscure performance art.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #56 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski

The troops are as happy as to be expected in times of war. They would be a lot happier if they were allowed to fight this war to win rather than fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

and who's tying their hands, moe? the administration? the same administration that went in to this war with to few troops, under faulty and misleading pretexts, with no plan for wining the peace? or perhaps it's congresses fault? but wait, isn't that the same congress that is controlled on both sides by the republican party? it couldn't be them then. who's left to blame? activist judges? the liberal media? bill clinton? eddie haskel or the easter bunny?
post #57 of 302
Have you guys read this thread? I mean, all posts at once?

Maybe it's me, but even though it doesn't break any new ground it's still one of the funniest threads I've ever read.

Everyone's locked into their position. Nobody's changed their minds about anything in the last year and every poster's dial is set to eleven.

Few from the right have joined in, probably because the title makes it seem like a typical rant from the left.

But that's what makes it funny. Even without SDW, Trumpt and others, the conversation is proceeding with people anticipating the right's responses and trying to knock down points NOBODY has raised.

Not even a lack of debate can shut down PO. It has a life of its own!

Maybe it's because I came in late, or because I won't be going to the polls in November.
But this thread got me smiling. Great way to end the day.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #58 of 302
But just to keep on topic, I agree with Adda that the Republicans have their hands full and that it doesn't look good for them. If a few years ago the Democratic Party had dropped the hostilities to people of faith who are anti-abortion and not in favour of expanding gay rights, we'd be talking a serious landslide. Yes, Landside.

With all due respect to e161, the neo-cons and libertarians aren't able to produce a majority by themselves. The 'values voters' are who win Republican elections.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #59 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

But just to keep on topic, I agree with Adda that the Republicans have their hands full and that it doesn't look good for them. If a few years ago the Democratic Party had dropped the hostilities to people of faith who are anti-abortion and not in favour of expanding gay rights, we'd be talking a serious landslide. Yes, Landside.

With all due respect to e161, the neo-cons and libertarians aren't able to produce a majority by themselves. The 'values voters' are who win Republican elections.

Libertarians are 16% of the population, when you test them based on ideas rather than labels. But, the power of 'values voters' is a big problem for me, because those people are pure evil as far as I am concerned. The rise of the 'values voter' is one big reason that I am sure I will have to leave the country eventually (some time in the next 20 years).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #60 of 302
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #61 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by running with scissors

and who's tying their hands, moe? the administration? the same administration that went in to this war with to few troops, under faulty and misleading pretexts, with no plan for wining the peace? or perhaps it's congresses fault? but wait, isn't that the same congress that is controlled on both sides by the republican party? it couldn't be them then. who's left to blame? activist judges? the liberal media? bill clinton? eddie haskel or the easter bunny?


By the way. The same thing happened in Vietnam. For that also the point wasn't to win.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #62 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

If a few years ago the Democratic Party had dropped the hostilities to people of faith who are anti-abortion and not in favour of expanding gay rights, we'd be talking a serious landslide.

So all Democrats have to do is forget about a few little hang-ups they have about separation of church and state, reproductive rights, and equality, and they're all set. That's good to know!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #63 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Burn baby burn!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15117698/

That is not very convincing - asking journalists what they feel in their gut that the election results will be - kind of like truthiness. National polls really don't mean much, because it does not matter if you get more votes in a race that is already 100% democrat.

Here is a guy who looks at each individual race, and combines the results - I don't know if he has a history of being right or not:

http://www.electionprojection.com/
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #64 of 302
I'd be curious if anyone remembers what things were like in '94 when Republicans gained control of Congress. Were Republican gains in line with most pre-election polling, or greater than that polling would have predicted? (I doubt the gains could have been less than predicted.)

When I'm in an optimistic mood about the upcoming elections (I go back and forth from pessimistic to optimistic every few hours), I find myself hoping that Republicans simply aren't going to be as enthusiastic to get out and vote as they have been in recent years, and that a lot of "likely voter" polling (which I believe typically uses a weighting formula based on previous elections) isn't taking into account a diminished enthusiasm of Republican voters which I think might come into play.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #65 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

Here is a guy who looks at each individual race, and combines the results - I don't know if he has a history of being right or not:

http://www.electionprojection.com/

From what I'm reading in another forum, very few people predicted Republicans would take control of the House in '94. According to one poster, most predictions of Republican gains were more like mid 20s than the 54-seat gain they got.

At this point, I'm not sure if wild speculation, pessimism, or optimism aren't just as useful in making predictions as detailed analyses like the one above. I've seen similar detailed analyses showing Dems winning the House and tying in the Senate (counting a couple of Independents as caucussing with Dems). Of course, in the Senate a tie is as good as a loss with Cheney as tiebreaker.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #66 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

From what I'm reading in another forum, very few people predicted Republicans would take control of the House in '94. According to one poster, most predictions of Republican gains were more like mid 20s than the 54-seat gain they got.

At this point, I'm not sure if wild speculation, pessimism, or optimism aren't just as useful in making predictions as detailed analyses like the one above. I've seen similar detailed analyses showing Dems winning the House and tying in the Senate (counting a couple of Independents as caucussing with Dems). Of course, in the Senate a tie is as good as a loss with Cheney as tiebreaker.

I remember people debating about whether the Republicans would gain the House or the Senate, and I think it was conventional wisdom that they would gain at least one. The more conservative guessing was for the Senate, because that had flipped parties back and forth many times, while the House had been in Dem hands for so many decades. But polls suggested Republicans would take the House too, from what I recall, and people just couldn't believe it because Dems had been in charge for so long. I don't think they did as extensive polling then as they do now, though, so that might have been part of the uncertainty.

I was looking at the senate races at pollster.com, and of all the top 6 or 7 senate races, no republican - even if they have a lead - breaks above 50%. Those undecideds may go somewhere.
post #67 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

So all Democrats have to do is forget about a few little hang-ups they have about separation of church and state, reproductive rights, and equality, and they're all set. That's good to know!

No, but the Republican party somehow found room for a pro-gay vice president, among others.
Religious conservatives who oppose war tolerate the neo-con side of the party, and even make common cause with the libertarians on a lot of economic ground.

Note that both neo-con and libertarians can disagree with the abortion position of the pro-family side of things. Yet they all dwell under the same tent.

Pro-life and pro-family activists are made to feel unwelcome in the Democratic party. That's just a fact.
Until Democratic party bigwigs start to tolerate people whose views they disagree with, they can always expect to have a rough time in national elections.

Obama gets this.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #68 of 302
Thread Starter 
My memory is that there was a "sense" that things were going to favor Republicans, without much hard data that they were going to make huge gains. The whole thing was a little subterranean.

That's one of the reasons I think the fall elections keeps getting more interesting: the "sense" was already there, and this series of Republican set backs are pile-on from there. '94 had nothing like the specific headlines that we are seeing now.

I can't help but think this stuff is just death on getting your base to show-up; there's a palpable feeling, unlike '00 and '04, that it's just not "fun" to be a Bush supporter anymore. By that I mean that the Republicans, especially after 9/11, had created an incredibly polarized environment that gave a lot of people the satisfaction of being part of an "angry mob", shouting down dissent and ready to route the enemy within, ala the whole burning Dixie Chick CDs thing.

Now, it's like the morning after a drunken spree. Sure, there are a lot of resentful people still around, but the mob has largely broken up and it's just not as cool to stand around shouting "liberal traitors must die" when you're not surrounded by thousands of other and carrying torches. The constant reminders that the guys with the bullhorns that were egging you on are corrupt or incompetent or creepy really doesn't help get the old gang back together again for one last hurrah.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #69 of 302
so basically, if you want the trappings of power, you should just go along with the agenda of the ones holding the strings. Great Frank, i'm sure Cunt Jesus would be proud.
post #70 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

My memory is that there was a "sense" that things were going to favor Republicans, without much hard data that they were going to make huge gains. The whole thing was a little subterranean.

My feeling about 1994 is that it was the culmination of the shift of the south to the Republicans, and had much less to do with transitory issues like Clinton's health care. Those issues were just the final outlet for that long-term shift.

I don't know if there are any similar long-term trends favoring Democrats today, but if there is one, it's the flip side of the Republicans taking the socially/religiously conservative South. My hope is that the rest of the country doesn't like the TerrySchiavo/big government religious conservatism, and is beginning to reject it in favor of a more liberal/libertarian approach.

For example, in my state, the Republican senate incumbent is running on 1) how much federal pork he brings home to Montana, and 2) how his Democratic challenger wants to repeal the Patriot Act. My wife got a push poll on this yesterday. Burns is running an ad of Tester saying he wants to repeal the Patriot act. Montana is a cheap media market, and the ad has been on constantly for about two weeks. Problem is, during that time, Tester's lead has increased. Burns' pitch might play well in the south, but in libertarian-leaning Montana, a Republican running on the Patriot act and federal spending just isn't going to play. Same thing with Santorum getting crushed in PA and even George Allen in a tough race in Virginia: The religious and social conservatism is wearing thin.

At least that's my hope: The Republicans can have the religious conservatives that dominate the South, and Democrats can have the rest of the country.
post #71 of 302
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

No, but the Republican party somehow found room for a pro-gay vice president, among others.

The idea that Cheney is "pro-gay", or an exemplar of some kind of Republican big tent, is silly. He may not be actively hostile, going around making "kill the fags" speeches, but that is a very long way from anything resembling "pro-gay". Do you imagine that the "party big-wigs" would be cool with Cheney taking to making speeches about how we ought to fully embrace homosexuality as normal and unthreatening and not a biblical sin at all but just another way of being human? Because that's "pro-gay".

Quote:
Religious conservatives who oppose war tolerate the neo-con side of the party, and even make common cause with the libertarians on a lot of economic ground.

That merely suggests to me that religious conservatives are willing to put their morals in their hip pocket as long as it means they can continue to have access to power, which has less to do with "tolerance" than a cynical determination to do whatever is necessary. If you oppose the war it ought to be for reasons significant enough that you don't put them aside in the interests of winning elections. At any rate, do you actually think that the Republican Party embraces "being against the war" as an acceptable position? Now that the wheels have come off there is a little bit of kvetching, but please. "Being against the war" was being "objectively pro-terrorist", remember? That's your idea of a big tent?

Quote:
Note that both neo-con and libertarians can disagree with the abortion position of the pro-family side of things. Yet they all dwell under the same tent.

Again, they might disagree, but there is no sense that the national face of the Republican Party is mellow about abortion. Noting that certain individuals may hold certain views and that operatives from the party do not therefore come out and excommunicate them doesn't make ay kind of case for the broad and accepting diversity of that party.

Quote:
Pro-life and pro-family activists are made to feel unwelcome in the Democratic party. That's just a fact.

Oh, wait, it's "activists" now? So shouldn't we be looking for pro-choice "activists" that are embraced by the Republicans? At any rate, there are quite a few Democratic candidates in this very election cycle that hold divergent views from the official national part position. They're running in very conservative districts and reflect the realities of where they are. Haven't noticed anyone form Dean's office coming out to shut them down. And please don't start up about Lieberman. The guy had drifted from the views of his electorate, so they dumped him. That's not intolerance, it's democracy, and precisely the same thing happened with a couple of Republicans who were insufficiently conservative, and, I might add they were ousted with a lot more coordination and support from the national part than what happened in Connecticut.

Quote:
Until Democratic party bigwigs start to tolerate people whose views they disagree with, they can always expect to have a rough time in national elections.

This is simply a bullshit right wing canard, whether you know it or not. Democratic "big wigs" tolerate all kinds of stuff. In fact, the problem with the party recently is that hey have "tolerated" far too much, becoming little more than "Republicans light". They'll do far better this cycle by sharply differentiating themselves from the failed and corrupt Republican Party.

National parties win elections by being clear about what they stand for and sticking to principles. Certainly you would have to be blind or stupid to claim that the Republican Party has built its recent electoral successes on being "inclusive"-- they've done it by being savagely partisan and energizing the "base", which has precisely zero interest in making nice with the heathens. The reason they are in trouble now is that they have fucked up horribly, beyond their power to spin it away.

Quote:
Obama gets this.

Obama is pleasant and vaguely inspirational, until it means he has to take a hard stand. Where was he on torture, if he is so guided by religious principle? And the whole "the Dems must cease their hostility to religions" thing is absolute 100% bullshit. Show me one, a single instance of a national Democratic figure saying anything that could be construed as "hostile to faith". Resisting a powerfully organized, politically active Christian right is to resist the right, not "christianity", and anybody who's being honest can see this. The christian right has very systematically promulgated the idea that to resist their specific, partisan, institutional goals is to be "against religion". When Obama provides cover for this nonsense it makes him pretty much an opportunistic dick, in my book.

That's not "getting it", that's trying not to burn any bridges while still a neophyte and people are telling you you could be president some day.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 302
The Democrats need to come out swinging and get the message out that the Republicans are soft on f*cking little boys.
post #73 of 302
How about Democrats just come out swinging and get the message out that Republicans don't mean what they preach and don't walk the talk.

If Bush and Rove want to run the old tired campaign slogan that Democrats will raise your taxes. Then Democrats should run with a slogan that Republicans are hypocrits.

Liberals bad. (GOP)
Republican hypocrits. (DNC)
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #74 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by trick fall

The Democrats need to come out swinging and get the message out that the Republicans are soft on f*cking little boys.

According to Foley's e-mails and IMs, it sounds like he was very hard on that... or at least at the thought of that.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #75 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate

the old tired campaign slogan that Democrats will raise your taxes.

It doesn't really count as a slogan if it is true.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #76 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate

How about Democrats just come out swinging and get the message out that Republicans don't mean what they preach and don't walk the talk.

If Bush and Rove want to run the old tired campaign slogan that Democrats will raise your taxes. Then Democrats should run with a slogan that Republicans are hypocrits.

Liberals bad. (GOP)
Republican hypocrits. (DNC)

Maybe it's because I'm too far north, but from press reports I honestly have no idea what the Republican message is this time around. Is Rove personally involved this time around, or is he looking to the 2008 campaign?

While the press here is more focused on Hillary, I'm not even sure who the frontrunner is for the GOP in 2008.

From where I sit, it's been really quiet with the "strategic war" element of this election cycle, with the Dems sort of coasting on W's unpopularity and the GOP being buffeted by various scandals and such that Adda outlined in Post 1.

Is that a real picture of what's going on, or is there something happening "on the ground" we don't see up here?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #77 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

It doesn't really count as a slogan if it is true.

You crazy and they should double the estate tax. Accrued wealth is an enemy of democracy.
post #78 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by trick fall

You crazy and they should double the estate tax. Accrued wealth is an enemy of democracy.

20% of the businesses that are subject to estate tax are forced into liquidation each year when their founders get caught without enough life insurance. All the employees of those businesses lose their jobs, and the insurance industry gets a huge subsidy, just because you hate rich people.

Besides the insurance industry benefiting, the only other major impact of the estate tax is that it discourages real estate and private business investment - you are only safe if you own liquid assets like publicly traded stocks of large companies (so the estate tax makes large public companies much more rich and powerful at the expense of private companies).

And the estate tax is already 55% - good luck doubling it. If you even try to raise it a little you can say goodby to tens of thousands of millionaires (with a few trillion in assets).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #79 of 302
Yup, the Paris Hilton inheritance tax cut. Cut taxes on the wealthiest couple hundred people in the country, and raise taxes on everyone else to make up for it. Oh but wait, we don't need to raise taxes on everyone else, because we don't need to pay for government anymore. Our budget runs on magic now!
post #80 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

Yup, the Paris Hilton inheritance tax cut. Cut taxes on the wealthiest couple hundred people in the country, and raise taxes on everyone else to make up for it. Oh but wait, we don't need to raise taxes on everyone else, because we don't need to pay for government anymore. Our budget runs on magic now!

Paris Hilton has liquid investments, she could care less about the estate tax. The estate tax mainly affects people who own private companies with 20-100 people working for them, and also people with a lot of land (farmers, for example).

None of the "Forbes 500" richest people care about the estate tax - so what if they have to sell half of their stocks to pay the tax, they get a bumped up cost basis of the rest of their stocks to make up for it (or else they hide it in Fiji like senator Kennedy). Private businesses get killed, and none of those people are anywhere close to the richest 500.

All this "paris hilton" and "top richest" crap is propaganda - you are no better than the gay bashing republicans.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Republican Party is in flames and it's raining gasoline.