Future of Republican Party
Coming up to the election, there were two completely different worldviews and it is clear which side succeeded. At least to me, and I'm sure most people here, it was clear what happened: Republicans tried to force a radical narrative and stuck to with it even when there was zero substance behind that narrative. While it did have some power, that radical narrative obviously wasn't influential enough to win an election that Republicans should have won.
Looking at demographics, it is clear that the Republicans are fighting a losing battle. Assuming Obama comes out on top of the popular vote (seems like it), Democrats have won majority 5 out of the past 6 elections and this trend will only continue if nothing changes. From the Republican primary, it is also clear that the GOP is split between moderate and "tea party" factions. Romney, a weaker candidate in general, was forced to appeal to the radical side of the GOP to get financing and a united GOP, moving him too far to the right to get enough independent voters to win the election.
Republicans have an upcoming choice in the four years: admit that your narrative is rejected by the majority of Americans and move to the center or double down and hold off the inevitable for another decade or so. I welcome a more moderate GOP since I do not want Democratic solely in control, and there are positive signs already that many Republicans will move in that direction. It will not be a clean shift, a "civil war" may break out, but I think it will be extremely interesting to see the political landscape around 2016.
I agree with many others here that a Clinton versus Huntsman 2016 would be ideal. However, a lot can change in four years.
Some interesting articles explaining why Republicans lost:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/11/why_romney_lost_he_couldn_t_separate_himself_from_the_republican_party_s.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-failed-their-readers/264855/
Newt Gingrich admitting that the GOP needs to move in a different direction:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/newt-gingrich-wrong_n_2088042.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsI think there's a lot of truth here.
Cheer up. The guy we just re-elected is a moderate Republican.
I know how stupid that sounds. Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. For five years, conservative politicians and media told you he was a raving socialist. In the heat of the campaign, when you’re trying to beat the guy, it’s hard to let go of that image of him, just as it’s hard for Democrats to see past the caricatures of Mitt Romney. But now that the campaign is over and you’re staring at a second Obama term, the falsity of the propaganda may come as a relief. By and large, Obama’s instincts are the instincts of a moderate Republican. His policies are the policies of a moderate Republican. He stands where the GOP used to stand and will someday stand again.
morelimbaugh:
a moderate is just a liberal that doesn't have the guts to call himself a liberal
I think there's a lot of truth here.
Claiming that "Obama is a moderate Republican".
more
Not even close. Obama supported cap and trade, nationalized health care, and closing down every coal fired power plant in the country. He's restricted oil and gas drilling on federal lands, and has actually taken over one of our biggest corporations, and arranged to sell it to the Union.
He sues states that try to pass voterID law. He won't support e-verify laws to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, or give us decent border protection.
Obama: "Under my plan, electric rates would necessarily skyrocket".
THAT is NO Republican!
Not even close. Obama supported cap and trade,
Invented by Republicans.
nationalized health care,
Didn't happen, and what he did do was invented by Republicans.
and closing down every coal fired power plant in the country.
Didn't happen.
Invented by Republicans.Didn't happen, and what he did do was invented by Republicans.Didn't happen.
yeah, but it's still fun to make things up.
What do you expect from a Kenyan born Muslim? And why do you hate America Happy Monkey? WHY?
I agree with many others here that a Clinton versus Huntsman 2016 would be ideal.
Personally, I'm betting on a contest between Hillary vs. Chris Christie.
Boehner: (a paraphrase, but a very close one)
"the american people have made clear that there is no mandate for raising taxes"
"instead of discussing what taxes we can raise, the president needs to come to us with a plan we can accept that discusses what reforms we can undertake to reduce the deficit."
Boehner does not talk like a man who is willing to compromise, just as he did not compromise before. Whether or not this is a good negotiating strategy in other circumstances is debatable. In the context of the "fiscal cliff"
The president, personally and politically, has little to lose, having won his last election ever, unlike Rep Boehner. His impetus to politick is far less than his motivation to get things done for the good of the nation. Honestly, I don't see much evidence on Boehner's part of a desire to do the nation's business. I see him as consistently obstructionist--not helpful, certainly not to the nation.
also
"fewer loopholes and lower rates for all"
and
"it won't be solved by a lame duck congress"
?!?
omg, he's disabled the brakes , locked the wheel and has both feet on the gas. guess where we're headed. jfc.
Yeah, I dont understand why the most recent media reports concerning Boehner's post election statements have headlines like "Boehner Willing to Compromise." Yet when you read beyond the headline or stick around long enough to hear more than a few sound bites, Boehner's rhetoric remains unchanged, and he is still sprouting the same "won't give an inch," tea party inspired demands and threats.
I was bemused to read the following from ABC News under the heading
“John Boehner Welcomes Big Deficit Deal, Pledges to Work with President Obama”
~snip~"It would be an agreement that begins to pave the way for the long-term growth that is essential if we want to lift the cloud of debt hanging over our country," Boehner said. "It involves making real changes to the financial structure of entitlement programs, and reforming our tax code to curb special-interest loopholes and deductions. By working together and creating a fairer, simpler, cleaner tax code, we can give our country a stronger, healthier economy."
~snip~Boehner said he told the president that the Republican majority in the House "stands ready to work" with him "to do what's best" for the country. Still, the speaker was clear that new revenue must be a "byproduct of a growing economy," and he emphasized that "to garner Republican support for new revenues, the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt."
Sure, Boehner will compromise as long as the compromise is all coming from the other side. He still demands tax cuts for the "small businessmen" in the uppermost income brackets and he still insists that Americans with the lowest incomes be the ones on whose backs the budget is balanced. Otherwise the Republican majority in the House "stands ready" to continue to just vote "no" to any and everything. It's "what's best for the country," after all.
If that's Boehner's idea of compromise, I wonder what he does when he is in an actively oppositional mode? Call upon the newly equipped navy to help the Red States to invade the Blue ones? :eek:
Invented by Republicans.Didn't happen, and what he did do was invented by Republicans.Didn't happen.
Nationalized health care has a very long history, going back to at least Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution, and probably long before that.
Thankfully, Obama's support of cap and trade (which he referred to as "my plan"), was so toxic to the economy, that nobody would support it.
Not even Democrats! ;)
Nationalized health care hasn't happened in the US. Obamacare is pretty much all based on Republican proposals.
Cap and trade was invented by Republicans.
Nationalized health care hasn't happened in the US. Obamacare is pretty much all based on Republican proposals.
Cap and trade was invented by Republicans.
Quit with the facts, already!
We like to make stuff UP. It's way more FUN.
It's like the History Channel 2! Aliens did it!
Nationalized health care hasn't happened in the US. Obamacare is pretty much all based on Republican proposals.
Cap and trade was invented by Republicans.
You've had enough booze today, Monkey. :eek:
Adak, I thought you said you would be in favour of a national health system, as long as it was done right?
You've had enough booze today, Monkey. :eek:
ad hominem attacks are how true conservatives on the radio deflect inconvenient truths.
Rush Limbaugh was his usual self after this election,
but he did raise the question about the future of the Republican Party.
His off-the-wall remark that followed was:
What are we supposed to do about immigration
... repeal all the immigration laws ?
My belief is that if the Republican Party wants to make any inroads into the Hispanic community,
they must abandon their talking points that anything leading to citizenship is "amnesty".
An easy compromise for the Republicans could be to grant full US citizenship
for any person who was brought into the USA by their parent(s) before they were 22 years of age.
...(21 used to be the legal age of majority)
All this (crap) about having to first serve in the military or do public service
is just a artificial road block to those who are now labeled as "illegal aliens"
only because, as minors, they did what their parents required them to do.
You might think Republicans could view that was a good "family value"
If Republicans can't make such a small compromise on immigration,
they will remain what they have been for a long time,
a minority party that has to resort to race-baiting among
the whites of this country.
You've had enough booze today, Monkey. :eek:
You've got nothing, eh?
Cap and trade was invented by a Reagan lawyer, and implemented by GHW Bush.
And much of Obamacare is Romneycare.
He won't support e-verify laws to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, or give us decent border protection.
Wacko extremists forget that immigrants are the source of at least 40% of American patents and the resulting jobs 10+ years out. Unfortunately, the rich will do anything to protect their wealth and biases. Including job destruction especially after 2000. Wacko extremists even hate immigrants (ie Islamofacism) - a greatest source of future Americans jobs and economic strength. Even FemoNazis were invented by these extremists.
On spread sheets, immigrants are an expense. In reality, immigrants are some of the best and loyal Americans - loyal as in moderates. Import more immigrants and export more rich wacko extremists (ie Limbaugh). That improves America.
Four years ago, Republicans had meetings to decide their future. They decided to make America fail; to make Obama a one term president. We all witnessed their subversive actitivites in Congress led by extremists such as Majority Whip Eric Cantor. Well, the Republicans are now having that meeting again. Which group will they hate? Since extremists need a bogeyman to justify their existance. Or will Republican cast out the Tea Party and Fox News wackos to become more patriotic - more moderate?
Adak demonstrates how wacko extremists think. And honest Adak would have posted logical (adult) replies. A wacko extremist must post insults. Because he is extremist, then he can only post emotionally. Extremists are the target audience of Limbaugh and Fox News.
An honest Adak would have answered why Romney, who once called himself more liberal than Kennedy, is now a conservative. He cannot. That answer would expose why extremism exists. So he replied with insults. And then refused to answer the question. As an extremist, he insulted Happy Monkey rather than answer honestly - like an adult.
Extremists find supporters among adults who still think like children. Who think emotionally rather than logically.
It goes back to what Republicans must ask themselves in ongoing meetings. Does the party stop crucifying its patriotic moderates (ie Senators Lugar, Snow, Castle) to recruit only wacko extremists? Why did the party (in Delaware) replace Sen Castle with a witch?
For the same reason, Romney, who once said he was more liberal than Kennedy, then *proved* he was an extremist conservative. The party encourages liars. Serious questions should be asked in those meetings.
Immigration is easy, make Puerto Rico a state. Then pretend all Hispanics are Puerto Ricans.
Conservative cognitive dissonance:
“Ohio did go to Obama last night. And he really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii, and he really is legitimately President of the United States, again, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month, and the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy, and the polls were not screwed to oversample Democrats, and Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad, Nate Silver was doing math, and climate change is real, and rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes, and evolution is a thing, and Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us, and nobody is taking away anyone’s guns, and taxes have not gone up, and the deficit is dropping, actually, and Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the moon landing was real, and FEMA is not building concentration camps, and you UN election observers are not taking over Texas, and moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism."
[YOUTUBE]SVwXA7sHUlE[/YOUTUBE]
But what about Bigfoot? Obama has NOT yet addressed the Bigfoot Conspiracy and it's long past time he dropped the cover-up and reveal the secret race of apemen who have been bolstering his poll numbers across America, especially in the northwest wilds. I'll bet they aren't even documented.
But what about Bigfoot?
Bigfoot is not a white, English speaking, Christian male. Therefore he is not a Republican and cannot be a true American. We should deport him back to where he came from.
They have to stop their
war on women.
Women sent an unequivocal message to politicians on Tuesday. The gender gap was a whopping 18 percent; significantly higher than 2008’s twelve-point gap. Women made up a majority of the electorate, and unmarried women were 23 percent of voters.
There’s no doubt that an upswing in feminist activism had a demonstrable impact on the election. From the Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy to transvaginal ultrasounds to “binders of women”—the vociferous energy surrounding women’s issues is indisputable. But there’s an argument to be made that women’s silence also contributed to Democrats’ resounding wins on Tuesday.
Despite the media and feminist focus on “war on women” this election season, women remain largely mum around their personal experiences with abortion and sexual violence. Feminists have long fought to end the stigmas surrounding rape and abortion—urging women to tell their stories. After all, more than one-third of American women will have an abortion in her lifetime. More than 600,000 adult women were raped in the United States in 2010. Still, most American women don’t talk about ending their pregnancies or being assaulted. Though this silence is not necessarily the best tactic for feminism or for women themselves, it may have been the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.
maybe...just maybe...we're going back to a matriarchy!!!!!
this distresses my older son very, very much (he's a white Christian male in business school and he fully expects to become one of the 1% and I hope to Christ he DOES become one of them as I'm going to need that money in the future to buy tchochkes and hats and such) we had lunch yesterday (as a typical Republican, he made me pick up the tab ;) and he was telling me that the US was a male-centric country, with masculine virtues rating high on the list of desirable attributes. He then insulted Norway and Finland by calling them, in essence, "girly nations" who cared about compassion over defense.
then he ate another muffin.
Then I told him America isn't all THAT macho - look at any country in South America or the Middle East for REAL value of masculinity. Then I told him Germany was run by a woman. He didn't believe me and said he was going to ask his German prof. Shit, I didn't even KNOW he was taking German!
It was an okay lunch, food-wise. The cinnamon roll could've had more frosting but then I say that about almost all cinnamon rolls.
Ha!
Funny, these things come around. It is a common theme in the formation and maintenance of national identity, to paint the home nation 'male' in contrast to a feminized other.
My son...he's so patriotic he bleeds red, white and blue.
My other, younger son is Norway.
it's really weird having these two - like the sun and the moon.
My older boy also believes that if you say something, or truly, truly believe it, it is true. Kinda like The Secret or magic or something.
My dad called to tell me happy birthday yesterday, which meant I had to listen to him be all depressed about the election, which I knew would happen. I have a hands-free headset for the house phone that I use only for calls with him. I let him talk ignorant politics at me while I cook or fold my laundry, because he is old and lonely and no one else will listen to him, and I love him regardless.
BUT. One of his new talking points struck me as so funny that I just couldn't keep from giggling at him yesterday.
Did you know... that the numerical margin between Obama's votes and Romney's votes was exactly the same as the number of new people enrolled in the food stamp program since he took office? The Democrats bought the election with tasty, tasty free food! I swear to God. And he's not the type to make up his own talking points, so someone--Glenn Beck, or Rush, or maybe even someone on Fox News--actually said this.
If you saw the Karl Rove meltdown video, and I know you did, here's the reason why.
Many of the lightning bolts were aimed at none other than Karl Rove, the former Bush administration political genius who oversaw the deployment of nearly $400 million in campaign spending through outside groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS toward the presidential race and toward numerous Senate and House races.
"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one Republican operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do … I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."
So the Citizens United Supreme Court decision turned into a 400 million dollar money hole (and that's just Karl Rove's part, the complete total is closer to 700 million) that big Republican donors filled, with the end result that Obama is still president and the Democrats actually picked up Senate seats.
I weep for them, really I do.:lol::jig::lol2:
gee, richlevy, you sound kind of...well, to be blunt, insincere; but, you know, it DID pump a lot of money into the economy...so...there's that.
Now allow me to brush a single tear from my eye for them.
And the "liberal media" got all that cash.
$400 million of redistributed income... no wonder they're pissed.
Well, the Republican Party has (should have) made a decision what they want to do. What is it? First indications should be apparent this week.
Civil war (between themselves).
Well, the Republican Party has (should have) made a decision what they want to do. What is it? First indications should be apparent this week.
Well, Mitt was taking "women's issues" advice from his wife, which might have actually worked if she wasn't the reincarnation of June Cleaver.
So if upper crust Republicans they want some input on Latino issues, they should go to Latinos who they know personally.
Now that Mitt can go back to hiring illegals again, I'm sure that he will be able to figure out with their help that supporting the bipartisan
Dream Act instead of running away from it in the primaries would have been a big help.
Forget the Dream Act, as it appears Dream Act hater
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.),will be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with primary jurisdiction on immigration matters.
From The Economist of 10 Nov 2012:
But what about the Republicans? Their script is depressingly easy to write. The party's leaders will once again conclude that they lost because their candidate was not a genuine conservative, and vow to find the real thing next time. Possible future leaders like Paul Ryan, this year’s vice presidential candidate, will head to the right in preparation for the 2016 primaries. Compromise with Mr Obama will be treason.
If the Republicans do that[,] they will be abandoning all electoral sense. They managed to lose an election again in a country where conservatives still handily outnumber liberals ... with extremist positions, such as rejecting any budget deal involving tax cuts even if spending cuts were ten times greater. Their obsession with abortion and gay marriage4 seems ever more out of touch with woman and young people. And their harshness towards illegal immigrants cost then the growing Latino vote ... Plenty of independent voters, and this newspaper, yearn for a more pragmatic Republican Party. Doing a deal on the deficit with Mr Obama would signal its rebirth.
But again, a benchmark from a conservative publication that defines conservatives verses wacko extremists.
Will the party be a conservative party? Or a party of wacko extremists? Starting this week, we discover if the party's intelligent leaders get promoted. Or if Limbaugh brainwashing, Cantor naysaying, and Tea Party ignorance continues to declare all others as evil.
Smart extremists only create one bogeyman. Wacko extremist Republicans cannot find enough bogeymen. Unfortunately, the vote also shows how many are so easily brainwash by rhetoric not supported by any facts, numbers, or intelligent thought.
Even the Dream act is somehow evil. No wonder an old guard of racists line the ranks of current Republicans. Jesse Helms and Trent Lott would heartily welcome these extremists Republicans to every Strom Thurmond birthday party.
Too many good quotes to put all of them on here:
Writing at Politico, Rep. Steve LaTourette says poor Republican voters are suffering under false consciousness. No really, he says that. He says they've been brainwashed like in The Manchurian Candidate.
" Republican primary voters were conditioned by these ultra conservative special interest groups into believing the way that we could change a Washington crippled by partisanship was by nominating even more bitterly partisan candidates."
...
The tension between the profit- and ratings-driven right — call them entertainment-based conservatives — and conservatives focused on ideas (the thinkers) and winning (the operatives) has never been more evident.…
And the entertainers’ power isn’t just with gullible grass-roots activists who are likely to believe whatever nefarious rumor about Obama is forwarded to them in an e-mail chain — it’s with donors, too.
Outside of Washington, New York and state capitals, the big conservative givers are as likely to have read Ed Klein’s Obama book and seen Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary 2016, and generally parrot whatever they just heard on Fox News as the old lady stuffing envelopes at county GOP headquarters.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/gop-civil-war-now-class-war/58922/I'd have thought you could get a better quote than that from someone called Steve LaTourette...
I think the Republican Party should go into comedy - the birther movement, Donald Trump's many appearances as Republican mascot, Karl Rove's election night emmy award winning performance, Grover Norquist calling Romney a "poopy head," and now I hear that Republican dominated Texas wants to leave the Union and get its Lone Star status back - you can't make stuff like that up. They're naturals! :lol:
Individuals in 18 states have already filed for succession. It obviously won't go through but funny in a sad sad sort of way.
Let's not get confused about this, Texans are ALWAYS entertaining the notion of independence. Take a look at my location--that's always been that way.
Part of the reason, to be honest, is we actually have the means to do it. It's just cute talk unless you can back it up.
there are now 20 states with petitions to withdraw from the us
We can expect 50. Canada looked pretty good during the W debacle lottsa folks here threatened it. This was SOP in America until Lincoln killed 620,000 of us to make a point.
I thought (and Clod or Flint can correct me here) that as part of Texas' statehood agreement lo those many years ago succession was always a possibility for them. They were so big and their hats, my god! were even bigger; I thought it was written into the Texas constitution of statehood or whatever the hell you call it that they COULD succeed anytime they wanted.
Texas, we hardly knew ye.
also, Key West tried to succeed but the stoners couldn't get it together to do it. They called themselves the Conch Republic. They were sick of cruise ships and their ilk walking their streets.
Secession and secede.
Sorry. It's one of my bugbears:P
oh, thanks. I could't bother to google. I WAS an Englihs major ya know. (but it was a state school...so....)
Duh.
The republican war on women? What about the
republican war *by* women?
[SIZE="4"]Arizona wife injures husband with car for failing to vote, allowing Obama to win: cops[/SIZE]
An Arizona woman was so enraged over her husband’s failure to vote in last week’s presidential race — essentially blaming him for President Obama’s re-election — that cops claim she mowed him down with her car.
Holly Solomon, 28, was cuffed after allegedly injuring her husband, Daniel Solomon, 36, with her Jeep in a Gilbert parking lot Saturday morning, the Arizona Republic reported Monday.
Daniel Solomon told investigators that his wife “just hated Obama,” according to local ABC affiliate KNXV.
A Gilbert police spokesman said she “believed her family was going to have hardship” under a second Obama term. Although GOP challenger Mitt Romney failed to win key swing states in the election, he still earned Arizona’s 11 electoral votes.
And even if Daniel Solomon had voted for Romney or any other candidate besides Obama, it wouldn't have made a difference — a fact that apparently didn't matter to Holly Solomon.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ariz-wife-injures-husband-car-failing-vote-police-article-1.1201048#ixzz2C7PPVjzr
The tension between the profit- and ratings-driven right — call them entertainment-based conservatives — and conservatives focused on ideas (the thinkers) and winning (the operatives) has never been more evident.…
And the entertainers’ power isn’t just with gullible grass-roots activists who are likely to believe whatever nefarious rumor about Obama is forwarded to them in an e-mail chain — it’s with donors, too.
I like this observation, right on target. I believe that these two groups are not mutually exclusive and when these two motives are in conflict in a given speaker, it seems the profit and ratings always takes precedence.
now there are 23 states petitioning. texas has far exceded the necessary 25,000 signatures and louisiana is getting close. another petition has been submited that any person signing a petition to secede would be stripped of their citizenship and exiled
America - love it or leave it! :rolleyes:
And in the "Don't it turn my brown eyes blue" department: If Texas wants out, they'd better git while the gitting's good. Demographic studies predict that Texas will become a Blue State by 2024 if not sooner due to increases in the Latino population there.
Finally, it would appear that Southerners still cherish the thought that "The South will rise again." States that were once a part of the Confederacy are in the lead when it comes to the numbers of signatures on the various petitions to secede from the Union.
now there are 23 states petitioning. texas has far exceded the necessary 25,000 signatures and louisiana is getting close. another petition has been submited that any person signing a petition to secede would be stripped of their citizenship and exiled
I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand it's a free speech issue. On the other hand signing a petition to secede is pretty close to renouncing one's citizenship.
Of course, maybe all of these guys would be happier playing 'great white warlord' in a compound in Somalia. Stockpiling AK-47s and tons of ammo is legal there, or at least ignored by a weak government.
On the downside, their president would really be a liberal black Muslim.:cool:
I've always wondered... if Texas does leave the US and become its own entity, how would they stop Mexico from invading and retaking land they once had up through 1836? Does Texas have an army? They won't be able to use the US army, oh no. They'd have to ask for assistance and then there would be 'occupation' to make sure Mexico stays where Mexico is. Or would they request we 'nation build' so they can take care of themselves, because they couldn't when they left the union in the first place?
Or would they allow the current US bases to stay and enjoy by-proxy US protection without actually being part of the country?
And I know they have oil and cattle and some farms there, but what else would their GDP be based on? Tourism? Could US citizens get in on a driver's license or would passport be needed? Would they even have open borders?
This popped up on my Facebook feed, and, although I'm pretty sure I've read it before, it sort of fits...right about now.
Dear Red States:
We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving.
We in New York intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland and the rest of the Northeast.
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal, Mitch Mcconnell, and Todd Akin.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Opryland.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.
You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% say that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than the rest of the planet.
We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Citizen of the Enlightened States of America
Now there are petitions in all 50 states. Texas and Louisiana have the required number of signatures that will force the Executive Branch to respond.
How will the Enlightened States pay for all of their social welfare programs? A higher percentage of people in Red States pay taxes. Somebody will have to pay for all those free cell phones.
Oh, did I mention we will take the majority of nuclear missles with us?
Actually, no. The red states have a higher percentage of people using government aid than the blue states do.
Moochers
And the highest tax producing states are actually blue.
Subsidizing...
Oh, and those cell phones? That plan was begun back in 1996 and was not a cell phone, but a land line. The landline has since been updated to cellular for obvious reasons.
Obama PhoneNow there are petitions in all 50 states. Texas and Louisiana have the required number of signatures that will force the Executive Branch to respond.
By laughing? What would they do?
"Force the Executive branch to respond" isn't much. Just ask the guys who "forced" them to respond to a
weed decriminalization petition.
And that was a serious issue.
I'll bet Cambodia will let them in.
Stormie - I stand corrected. A tip of the hat to you. Yes, that program began in the Clinton administration and the cellphones are subsidized by the Universal Service Fee.
piercehawkeye45 - from the whitehouse.gov site, "If a petition meets the signature threshold, it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response." Yes the response will probably be a laugh, but it does indicate a division in our country.
This popped up on my Facebook feed, and, although I'm pretty sure I've read it before, it sort of fits...right about now.
Wait, wait just a minute. That means the blue states still end up with Trump. Or will he be something they'd have to tolerate, like horseflies in a barn?
I've always wondered... if Texas does leave the US and become its own entity, how would they stop Mexico from invading and retaking land they once had up through 1836? Does Texas have an army? They won't be able to use the US army, oh no. They'd have to ask for assistance and then there would be 'occupation' to make sure Mexico stays where Mexico is. Or would they request we 'nation build' so they can take care of themselves, because they couldn't when they left the union in the first place?
Or would they allow the current US bases to stay and enjoy by-proxy US protection without actually being part of the country?
And I know they have oil and cattle and some farms there, but what else would their GDP be based on? Tourism? Could US citizens get in on a driver's license or would passport be needed? Would they even have open borders?
Secession is stupid, of course. But the Texas secessionists have been around a long time, and have thought all these questions through before, believe me. Texas has a healthy GDP, based largely in oil and beef, as you say, plus also a surprising piece of the tech industry. And of course Texas would have an army if they seceded--nevermind the fact that many if not most families already own multiple guns, everyone currently on a Texas military base would just change their letterhead, that's all. Unless you're imagining that Texas secedes but somehow has to hand over everything within our borders, which you may be sure they wouldn't agree to. And Mexico wouldn't invade, they'd just keep sending immigrants here at a staggering rate like they have been. More likely, Texas would offer amnesty to any Mexican willing to join this new Texas army, to fight in the inevitable civil war that breaks out when the federal government tries to take back its fighter jets.
Another fact the secessionists throw out quite regularly is that Texas is the only state with a completely independent power grid. Life wouldn't be as good, but Texas could definitely survive on its own. The biggest threat to their success would be how much Great White Flight takes place. How many liberals in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, and Austin would flee to a northern state? Depends mostly on whether the feds let Texas go quietly or not. I honestly think most people wouldn't uproot their lives, unless they were being drafted for a bloody civil war.
Given all that, if they're so ready, I wonder what's taking them so long to split. If it's a matter of a petition and a nod from the White House to do it peacefully, do they really think they'll get it now? Or in the next 4 years?
If they want to fight their way out, that should be quite interesting. They just better keep the fighting out of Louisiana.
Why aren't red states patriotic?
Given all that, if they're so ready, I wonder what's taking them so long to split. If it's a matter of a petition and a nod from the White House to do it peacefully, do they really think they'll get it now? Or in the next 4 years?
Because the vast majority of us are not morons. No one here is even talking about the petition, only the news outlets from out-of-state. In a state this big, it's a given that there will be over 25,000 dumbasses in favor of any issue. No one here pays the secessionists any mind, they've been around forever.
Secession will never happen. It is simply a way of making a political statement.
Spexxvet - It all boils down to States' Rights
Wait, wait just a minute. That means the blue states still end up with Trump. Or will he be something they'd have to tolerate, like horseflies in a barn?
Just to show that we're not above listening to the opposition - "self deportation".
In a state this big, it's a given that there will be over 25,000 dumbasses in favor of any issue.
Not to mention the fact that anyone can sign any state's petition, so all you need is 25,000 dumbasses total, let alone from one state.
~snip~ everyone currently on a Texas military base would just change their letterhead, that's all. Unless you're imagining that Texas secedes but somehow has to hand over everything within our borders, which you may be sure they wouldn't agree to. ~snip~ More likely, Texas would offer amnesty to any Mexican willing to join this new Texas army, to fight in the inevitable civil war that breaks out when the federal government tries to take back its fighter jets.
Minor point, but I find it pretty unlikely that everyone on Texas military bases would just change their letterheads. Military personnel stationed on bases in any of the 50 states are from all over the US - not just the state that their current duty assignment happens to be located in. Plus, members of the military are generally rotated to different places every 3 years. Their loyalty is to the Pentagon and the US as a whole – not to Texas and not to any other state they might find themselves stationed in.
And the Pentagon is going to withdraw American troops from what is now a foreign country unless the decision is made to fight Texas to force it back into the Union. The departing troops will be ordered to take all weapons, tanks, fighter planes, aircraft carriers etc. with them – you never ever leave equipment for enemy forces to use if it can be avoided. Anything that can’t be shipped out will be destroyed.
The Texans can try to capture sophisticated US weaponary with their hunting guns and their coon hounds, but even with the help of the Mexican mafia, they’ll be outgunned.
Spexxvet - It all boils down to States' Rights
I wonder how many states would have opted out of the Iraq war?
They had the option of not sending National Guard troops
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.
But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics.
...
It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.
...
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
...
This constant drizzle of "there the two parties go again!" stories out of the news bureaus, combined with the hazy confusion of low-information voters, means that the long-term Republican strategy of undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral dividends.
...
Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition.
As for what they really believe, the Republican Party of 2011 believes in three principal tenets I have laid out below. The rest of their platform one may safely dismiss as window dressing:
1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors.
2. They worship at the altar of Mars.
3. Give me that old time religion.
It's a good article, substantial. It was written about 14 months ago so some of it feels like we've seen the ending (of the most recent episode) already. But the article is still well worth reading. I don't know what it says about the future of the Republican party, but it sure hits the nail on the head as to their past and present.
That was really interesting, V.
That lost me in the first four words, but I read on.
Then it lost me again at the end of that first paragraph.
- no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers;
and no negotiation of drug prices,
The single-payer status is accurate, but the justification is not.
That was the compromise by the Democrats in order to get even
a single Republican Senator to vote in favor of Obamacare.
The second is solely the previous Republican President's banner to bear.
But I do realize these are the meanderings of one
misguided Republican soul.
Oh wait, I'm being redundant :rolleyes:
Transient acantholytic dermatosis spreading among Republican Party...
From Wikipedia:
Grover's disease often starts quite suddenly.
It results in very itchy spots on the central back, mid chest and occasionally elsewhere.
Frequently, it follows sweating or some unexpected heat stress.<snip>
Grover's Disease is mainly seen in males over the age of forty[4]
and the papules are most commonly found on the mid chest.
Sometimes the features of Grover's are found in people who do not itch or have a conspicuous rash.
It is thought that Grover's disease affects chiefly white adults in the fifth decade or later,
and appears to be around 1.6 to 2.1 times more common in men than in women.
Grover's disease appears less commonly in darker-skinned individuals, but has been reported.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]This from the latest Google News:[/COLOR]
http://www.businessinsider.com/grover-norquist-pledge-republicans-mccain-graham-saxby-chambliss-fiscal-cliff-revenues-taxes-2012-11
Business Insider
Brett LoGiurato
11/25/12
Some Top Republicans Are Breaking With Grover Norquist On New Revenues
Add Republicans Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Peter King to the list
of top party members in Congress who are increasingly breaking
with conservative Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge."
All three said on Sunday talk shows that they are willing to add
more tax revenues as part of a deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff"
in January, a position that is becoming commonplace among Republicans
despite the fact that it would violate Norquist's pledge to not raise taxes.
<snip>
On the other hand....
So here is the Republican Party reinventing itself. The GOP majority in the Ohio legislature rushes to defund Planned Parenthood in its post-election session. The orange-tinted speaker of the House proposes to undo Obamacare through “oversight” in the name of “solving our debt and restoring prosperity.” Never mind that health-care reform doesn’t raise the deficit but reduces it. Or that “a new low,” 33 percent of Americans, the anti-Obama bitter-enders, still favor repealing the law (PDF). And a rising star in the GOP future, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, offers a dim view out of the pre-Darwinian past that maybe the Earth was created in seven days—and that since “theologians” disagree, we should teach “multiple theories.”
This doesn’t sound like rethinking, or thinking at all, but like the reflex and revanchism of a party that doesn’t comprehend or simply can’t respond to the dimensions of its 2012 defeat. There’s not just the delicious irony that maladroit Mitt Romney, the 47 percent man, will end up with 47 percent of the vote. Outside the South, President Obama defeated his opponent 55 to 45 percent, winning a landslide there as well as in the Electoral College. The bottom line: Romney got elected president of the old confederacy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/the-gop-faces-years-in-the-wilderness-after-2012-election-losses.html
The article really annoyed me...
If the votes of only those aged 30 and older counted, Mr. Romney would be president. Young people will suffer most from the massive debt run up by the Obama administration. But Americans aged 18-29 voted for the president, 60-37, because incessant indoctrination by their teachers and professors in college outweighed rational self- interest.
Few young people today perceive what's in their interest because they are so massively ignorant of history, civics, economics, geography, physics and basic math. They've been told what to think, but they haven't been taught how to think logically.
If Republicans keep trying to get their message across chiefly through campaign advertising, they can't hope to compete with the constant messaging from the dominant institutions of our culture.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_right_will_rise_116244.htmlIf the votes of only those aged 30 and older counted, Mr. Romney would be president. Young people will suffer most from the massive debt run up by the Obama administration. But Americans aged 18-29 voted for the president, 60-37, because incessant indoctrination by their teachers and professors in college outweighed rational self- interest.
Few young people today perceive what's in their interest because they are so massively ignorant of history, civics, economics, geography, physics and basic math. They've been told what to think, but they haven't been taught how to think logically.
If Republicans keep trying to get their message across chiefly through campaign advertising, they can't hope to compete with the constant messaging from the dominant institutions of our culture.
oh ffs. The old "young people are too dumb to know anything they aren't nearly as smart and in the know as us older folks and they are easily brainwashed with incessant indoctrination by the liberal teachers" crap. Since the beginning of time.
If we're not careful, women voting will make a HUGE difference in outcomes, too. Let's not let the young or the women listen to any of that 'constant messaging' because they are 'so massively ignorant of history, civics...'
What a tard.
@pierce, "revanchism" is my new word for the day... ;)
Few young people today perceive what's in their interest because they are so massively ignorant of history, civics, economics, geography, physics and basic math. They've been told what to think, but they haven't been taught how to think logically.
Aside from the rest, this is a statement with which I mostly agree. Sad but true.
With two kids through HS and one graduated from college, it has become increasingly apparent that teachers are teaching the students what they need to pass some state test more so than to think on their own - regurgitating facts and formulas instead of HOW to think.
It is true but that is a separate issue. I don't see it is full out indoctrination though (which the article implies).
Also, I strongly disagree that voting for Romney was in the best interests of my generation. That is the main point that irks me.
@pierce, "revanchism" is my new word for the day...
I am curious of what he means by conservative cultural infrastructure...
voting for Romney was in the best interests of my generation.
I didn't imply that Pierce. I was off on a teaching tangent.
I know. I agree with you.
I criticized the article's implication that our poor critical thinking education is causing young voters to vote against their own interest. First, I don't think my generation's critical thinking skills are any worse than you old timers :p:. Second, I don't think voting for Romney was in my generation's best economic or social interests.
I'm pretty convinced my g-g-g-generation is about as dumb as all that came before it, but not much more. The stupid people are just, via the internet, much, much more obvious.
I'm repeatedly amazed how many people don't know how the government works/is supposed to work, and are not embarrassed by that. In fact some tell me are proud of not knowing, and they feel not participating makes them guiltless in anything that bad happens in the world/country. "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him/her/them."
I don't know which is scarier, the ones that opt out, or the ones that vote uninformed.
I'll take the uniformed for $200 please.
No way. I'm much happier with folks who don't bother than people who don't know shit about what they're doing.
...especially since conservatives have a MUCH higher percentage of "low-information" voters.
...especially since conservatives have a MUCH higher percentage of "low-information" voters.
Don't mix convenient narrative with reality. I doubt your blue inner-city precincts have any more informed electorate than red rural districts. They both vote based on tradition. If Jon Huntsman had somehow escaped the GOP primary the red rural districts would have been on the "right" side of history.
Absolutely, uninformed/misinformed is equally prevalent in every segment, by party, by location, or any other designation.
I'm repeatedly amazed how many people
don't know how the government works/is supposed to work,
and are not embarrassed by that.
In fact some tell me are proud of not knowing, and they feel not participating
makes them guiltless in anything that bad happens in the world/country.
"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him/her/them."
I don't know which is scarier, the ones that opt out, or the ones that vote uninformed.
xoB, don't worry about it. Time heals everything.
You can't find anyone now that voted for Nixon, and soon it will be the same with Romney. :rolleyes:
Not so, I voted for Nixon... the first time. He promised to end the war.
I was very angry when he betrayed me, and actively campaigned against him the second time. I called off my engagement when she told me she had voted for Nixon because her boss told her it would be good for business.
Yes, that angry.
The right wingers, which are all around me, are telling me they voted for Romney and he should have won, but Obamaites stole the election. The political climate has changed so much, I think we'll hear a lot of that for the next four years.
Not so, I voted for Nixon... the first time. He promised to end the war.
Me too !!!
Maybe it was Nixon that turned me into such a mild mannered, wishy washy liberal.
I voted for Bush the first time too, because Gore gave me the creeps.
There again, he pissed me off... although it was probably Cheney that pissed me off the most.
^^me too^^
Then Perot! lol
this was my first presidential election, and i'm pretty proud to say my first ever presidential vote was for Obama. I mean, sure, that's true of a lot of people, but still, its real historically significant and will feel really cool to be able to say in a few decades.
I think my first vote was for Dukakis.
:rotflol:
I think my first vote was for Dukakis.
:rotflol:
And the young people go,
Who who who who who who who who who
Who who who who who who who who who
OK, I'll admit it. Reagan in 1984.
But I did vote for Dukakis in '88. I really liked him!
Mondale and Dukakis
The Dem's were on a roll back then
SNL skit at that time:
Sam Donaldson: Vice-President Bush, there are millions of homeless in this country - children who go hungry, and lacking in other basic necessities. How would the Bush administration achieve your stated goal of making this a kinder, gentler nation?
George Bush: Well, that is a big problem, Sam, and unfortunately the format of these debates makes it hard to give you a complete answer. If I had more time, I could spell out the program in greater detail, but I'm afraid, in a short answer like this, all I can say is we're on track - we can do more - but we're getting the job done, so let's stay on course, a thousand points of light. Well, unfortunately, I guess my time is up.
Diane Sawyer: Mr. Vice-President, you still have a minute-twenty.
George Bush: What? That can't be right. I must have spoken for at least two minutes.
Diane Sawyer: No, just forty seconds, Mr. Vice-President.
George Bush: Really? Well, if I didn't use the time then, I must have just used the time now, talking about it.
Diane Sawyer: No, no, Mr. Vice-President, it's not being counted against you.
George Bush: Well, I just don't want it to count against Governor Dukakis' time.
Diane Sawyer: It won't. It will come out of the post-debate commentary.
George Bush: Do you think that's a good idea?
Diane Sawyer: You still have a minute-twenty, Mr. Vice-President.
George Bush: Well, more has to be done, sure. But the programs we have in place are doing the job, so let's keep on track and stay the course.
Diane Sawyer: You have fifty seconds left, Mr. Vice-President.
George Bush: Let me sum up. On track, stay the course. Thousand points of light.
Diane Sawyer: Governor Dukakis. Rebuttal?
Michael Dukakis: I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!
Jon Lovitz as Dukakis
Dana Carvey as GHW Bush
Jan Hooks as Diane Sawyer
Kevin Nealon as Sam Donaldson
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88adebate.phtmlAnd the young people go,
Who who who who who who who who who
Who who who who who who who who who
OK, I'll admit it. Reagan in 1984.
But I did vote for Dukakis in '88. I really liked him!
He looked like a cartoon in that tank wearing that helmet.
Here's another couple of pic's that lost elections for the Dem's...
.
I'm still bitter about the dean-scream incident. Especially since it was perfectly reasonable for him to be as fired up as the crowd. but when you cut the audio to drown out the crowd screaming back at him and just play him shouting "YEAH!"...
I absolutely adore Howard Dean and hopes he gets properly back into politics soon, either nationally or here in Vermont.
Pure BS! It is all based upon one's perspective. The Democrats are no saints with their campaign contributions from Asia
Short term strategy for the Republicans is to oppose Susan Rice,
in hope that John Kerry will be nominated and appointed.
Then Massachusetts gets to appoint the replacement Senator.
And who do you suppose that might that be, with the initials JPB.?
ETA: I find it a bit more than odd that Republicans who destroyed Kerry's reputation
when he was running for the Presidency, are now campaigning
for his nomination as Sec of State.
Shameless tailposting:
Christie 2016.
If the Repub powerbrokers have even half a brain between them, but that's a big if.
He refused to put himself forward last time. I think he knew the republican party as a whole is too wingnutty at the moment. Right now he is not enough to swing that back. He wouldn't increase their credibility, they would strip him of his.
good observation Dana.
***
President Obama made good on his election night promise to meet with Mitt Romney. Today the two of them had lunch at the White House.
Big deal.
Mr Romney doesn't really have any political friends at the moment it seems. It would also seem that he has a *ahem* wealth of disappointed donors. Regardless, the President showed his class by keeping his promise. This wasn't good enough for the right wingnut talk radio fomentors. The lunch was private, no media, but the menu was released. White turkey chili and southwestern chicken salad. The hosts on the radio covered themselves in glory by insisting that Obama was humiliating his guest by insinuating he, Romney, was a white turkey. Several such childish remarks by hosts and guests alike were sprinkled through the conversations today.
They're... disconnected from reality.
I heard some what I assume you'd consider "the right wingnut talk radio "
They had nothing bad to say about it at all.
If you like, I'll start keeping a log. the show, the host, and the time of such statements. Today, Michael Medved was the one who first gave that description. Others talked about how Obama was rubbing his nose in it, since he had to walk past the construction for the inauguration.
No thanks. I'd rather you mention them specifically, instead of painting them all with that broad brush.
Not that my opinion means much.
OTOH, maybe the radio at the Dr's office wasn't wingnutty enough to qualify.
Remember it's the wingnuttiness rather than the right wing element that is being pointed to. I daresay there are a fair few decent rightwing commentators around.
I guess I'm lucky in that there are a couple local people here who aren't wingnuts. Heck, one radio show is totally liberal and is a stark contrast to some of the alternatives.
The future of the Republican Party will not include, at least in the official player rosters, the name of
Senator Jim DeMint, R, South Carolina.
Senator Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina who helped incite the Tea Party movement, will leave the Senate to become president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group.
How do you think this will affect what happens in the Senate? The Governor of SC will appoint a replacement, and will almost surely be another Republican. How do you think he'll make more of an impact as an opinion maker as opposed to a law maker?
Is the Republican party taking the same hit as their supporters?
Papa John's, Applebee's And Others Pay Huge Price For Anti-Obamacare Politicking
snip
Indeed, so serious was the reaction that Schnatter was forced to publish an op-ed piece where he sought to convince us that he never really intended to cut back worker hours but had simply been speculating on what he might do in response to the legislation.
snip
Papa John’s had good reason for concern as the pizza chain’s brand identity has plummeted from a high of 32 on election day, to a remarkably low score of 4 among adults who have eaten at causal dining restaurants during the past month.
snip
Applebee’s “pre-Terkel” Buzz score of 35 now sits at a pathetic 5.
snip
Darden Restaurants, Inc.— owner of Olive Garden, Red Lobster and LongHorn Steakhouse—has lowered its profit projections for the quarter ending November 25th, acknowledging that its bad numbers are the result of poorly performing promotions, Superstorm Sandy and…wait for it…the poor publicity it engendered by its decision to test out a plan to cut back on healthcare costs by putting more workers on part-time schedules.
snip
Hopefully, other businesses seeking to avoid their responsibilities under the healthcare law—such as Walmart who intends to cut back employee hours in the effort to push workers onto Medicaid rolls rather than take responsibility for their employees’ health care—will get the message.
from ForbesArticle criticizing current Republican views on foreign policy and ideas of what they need to change.
The Republican Party has a long and distinguished foreign policy lineage that currently lies in tatters. The ghosts of Iraq haunt the GOP's foreign policy mandarins, and the antics of right-wing pundits and politicians have further delegitimized the party. As a result, the GOP has frittered away a partisan advantage in foreign policy and national security that took half a century to accumulate.
Absent an Obama foreign policy fiasco -- a real one that commands the country's attention, not the sort of trumped-up ones that resonate only on Fox News and in the fever swamps of the Republican base -- the only way to repair the damage will be for the GOP to take foreign policy seriously again, in Congress and in the 2016 election. This does not mean railing against the isolationists in the party; in truth, their numbers are small. Nor does it mean purging the neoconservatives or any other ideological faction; no group has a lock on sense or wisdom, and there will and should be vigorous policy debate within both parties.
Rather, it means rejecting the ideological absolutism that has consumed the GOP's foreign policy rhetoric in recent years. It means recognizing that foreign policy has nonmilitary dimensions as well as military ones. And it means focusing on the threats and priorities that matter, rather than hyping every picayune concern. Most of all, it means that Republican politicians need to start caring about foreign policy because it is important, not because it is a cheap way to rally their supporters. The GOP has a venerated tradition of foreign policy competence; it is long past time to discover that tradition anew.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138461/daniel-w-drezner/rebooting-republican-foreign-policy?page=showFrom the snip quoted above : "The fever swamps of the Republican base" - I like that. The GOP is retreating further into the South as if persued by Sherman's March to the Sea. Republican members of Congress with constituencies from the North East and other regions which have escaped the tea party strangle hold are becoming more and more frustrated with a party held ransom by its lunatic fringe.
I don't see tea party members backing off until Obama leaves the White House. They're enraged that a black man has won the presidential election not only once but twice.
Obama's color has very little to do with the opinion of the VAST majority.
Please stop spreading that lie. What they are angry about has NOTHING to do with race.
That is the opinion of the "lunatic fringe."
I have a question for you, classic. What percentage of our country do you believe is racist to some degree or another?
Obama's color has very little to do with the opinion of the VAST majority.
Please stop spreading that lie. What they are angry about has NOTHING to do with race.
That is the opinion of the "lunatic fringe."
You'd be surprised. I was born in the South and most of my family on my father's side still lives there. I'm not saying every white person in the South is a racist - far from it - but a certain racial under current still remains.
As a matter of fact, I'll post a thread about it (you can yell at me there, too - I don't mind ;) ).
Obama's color has very little to do with the opinion of the VAST majority.
Color of Obama's skin is a concern to many extremist members of the Republican Party. Not among Democrats. Not among independents. And not among moderates.
Claiming that a majority of Replublican are not racist ignores the poltiical biases of most racists. Nobody said most Republicans are racist. The only valid question - where do racists hang out?
Why did Romney give a completely different stump speech to a gathering of (what he thought were) all white southern Republicans? Clearly 45% of minorities are seeking handouts from the government. That rhetoric and hate works on many Republican extremists.
Why did he not say that to others? A hate speech to a private gathering was designed to inspire his political base. Which include a large percentage of racists.
When I play the part of a right wing conservative extremist, real world extremists become more open about their racism. Openly racist comments are vocalized when a racists thinks it is safe to be honest and that vocal. Laugh with their racist jokes and they get even more vocal. Many racists are still among us..
In every case I have seen, the racist is strongly right wing Republican. Will often mix anger at the liberal media with racist statements about lazy minorities and immigrants. Of course the color of his skin is a concern with a significant percentage of racists who also share ideology in right wing Republican rhetoric. Part of that party that sees growth. Is strongest in regions where racism is traditionally strongest.
I have a question for you, classic. What percentage of our country do you believe is racist to some degree or another?
Racism must be defined before that question can be answered. Does racism only mean you think white people are superior to blacks people? Does it mean one race is somehow superior/inferior to another in certain aspects? Does racism apply to only conscious actions or subconscious thoughts and actions as well? Can cultural prejudice be considered racism? Can only people enforcing power be considered racist?
Different people have different definitions of what racism is and it is very easy to have very emotional arguments over something that is purely semantic. Keep in mind that, while I (and I'm assuming you) disagree with this definition, racism is largely defined as limited to people who have extreme animosity towards people of another skin color and racists are considered to be on the same level of those who committed genocide with that definition. This definition is popular here in the United States due to the extreme racism that existed.
Therefore, while my definition of racism is very loose (I think almost everyone who grew up in a racist environment is technically racist to some degree), I need to be careful throwing it around because some people have a much different definition and can, rightfully, take much offense to it.
I have no time to care about the poor fee-fees of people who uphold and continue racist structures but feel like "omg no i can't be racist i have a black friend and i think the kkk sux gosh if you're going to call people racist youre just gonna turn them off and make them worse" because racism is SO much deeper than consciously having a problem with black people.
and like, I'd basically define racism as "not struggling every day to erase insidious colonialist/imperialist/racist cultural values from your life and actions" which is about as broad a definition as it's possible to construe, because the PoC who suffer from the effects of racism and know way better than i do what racism IS say so, and to assume that white people know better about racism than they do is completely fucked up.
So I'll "throw it around" while utterly denying that there is any "rightulness" to their narcissistic offense-taken.
But even though I would argue that between eighty and a hundred percent of white people are racist... by anyone's definition, I find it hard to believe that it's possible to argue that less than at least a third of the population of this country is racist. and from that, I find it hard to believe that less than a supermajority of those racists vote consistently conservative.
IAmSam - you described your Lunatic Fringe again.
tw - Go fuck yourself. << that is not an emotional response, just a suggestion for you to entertain yourself for a moment or two.
PH45 thanks for the adult answer, but I'll play with him on my own...
Ibster - Hmm.. I'm gonna say that 78.5%. What do I win?
No, really, though. What's your actual opinion on how much of America is racist? If you're just gonna be a dick and try'n troll, you're basically admitting that there's no chance for a full and honest debate on the actual issues to occur here. because obviously if 78.5% of the country were racist, the idea that racism isn't a major factor in those who vote against obama is clearly bunk. Do you want to discuss the issues, and the fact that race might actually be an issue in American electoral politics, or do you wanna fuck around and be a dick about it? if the latter, sorry for daring to try and engage in good faith.
for that matter: when you dismiss chunks of the Republican party as the "lunatic fringe" - how far into the "base" or "core" of the party does that fringe extend? is the fringiest 20% of the party what you dismiss? the fringiest 40%? the fringiest 60%?
How much of the party has to be written off as "fringe" before the moderates are the exception rather than the rule?
I'd basically define racism as "not struggling every day to erase insidious colonialist/imperialist/racist cultural values from your life and actions" which is about as broad a definition as it's possible to construe, because the PoC who suffer from the effects of racism and know way better than i do what racism IS say so, and to assume that white people know better about racism than they do is completely fucked up.
I disagree completely. That view limits discussion and forces an issue to be viewed from a limited perspective, and not independent of perspective as it should be.
People of color obviously have a perspective that we can never obtain, but it needs to be realized that no single perspective tells the entire story. Therefore, it is ridiculous to state that a single perspective can "correctly" define racism or any other social doctrine. In reality, how racism works is independent of perspective and should be viewed without any biased.
In my opinion, trying to define racism from our current situation is hopeless because our current situation is so complex. I feel it is easier to create simple hypothetical scenarios and expand from there. That way, it is much easier to test your hypothesis with all available perspectives and experiences, not just cherry picking perspectives to that work with a certain world view.
For example, I believe that society and social narratives should be viewed as a group of individuals that more or less are working in unison. Since that is what society actually is, a group of individuals. From there, we can conclude that most people have some prejudice and every single individual came to these prejudices from different life experiences. However, since people can pick up on similar trends or have similar interests, these prejudices can become aligned in the form of social narrative. As a note, that does not mean every person in the society has to follow this narrative. If the people holding these prejudice have the power to enforce these prejudice, a power structure appears. Since people in power tend to want to stay in power, this power structure is reinforced through policies and culture and a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. society is formed.
I believe this is the easiest way to define and explain racism. It is general, devoid of biased, and in my opinion, can explain almost any type of racist/sexist/homophobic/etc behavior. What I find so interesting is that once a power structure is formed, it can be reinforced with no bad intentions at all.
PH45 thanks for the adult answer, but I'll play with him on my own...
I'm not here to impose, I am just leading up to a point. But I am going to impose anyway because it is a free country! :D
As for the racism affecting views on Obama question, it can't be viewed as black and white (:p:). Some people do disagree with Obama because of his skin color. Some people tend to focus on other perceived negative attributes more because of skin color. Some people are influenced by racists but not for racial reasons. Some people just legitimately disagree with his policies.
Have fun trying to quantify it!
What experiences can possibly lead white people to any understanding that would allow them to define racism, other than listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting bare statistics?
No, really, though. What's your actual opinion on how much of America is racist?
My honest opinion, about 100% of the people in the world are racist about something to some degree or another.
Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, Asians against greens... need I go on?
Oh, and everyone against transgendered males in college with black rimmed glasses and ugly purple nailpolish. :neutral:
^^THATS trolling and being a dick. ^^
Do you want to discuss the issues, and the fact that race might actually be an issue in American electoral politics
... major factor in those who vote against obama is clearly bunk.
ORLY? That is so fucking backwards, its sickening. Lets look at some numbers, shall we?
Answer two questions:
1) % of Whites that voted for Obama - [COLOR="White"]41%[/COLOR]
2) % of Blacks that voted for Romney - [COLOR="White"]7%[/COLOR]
So, without
your bias hat on what does that tell you with respect to racism?
IF you possibly come back with something better than my extremely low expectation of a completely partisan reply, we may continue the conversation. If not. I won't waste
my time with you.
(ETA - this was composed PRIOR to the last two posts above.)
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,600
Not bad & a rather memorable post. lol.
...it tells me that people of colour overwhelmingly perceive the republican party as being misaligned to their interests? Do you argue that this is a perception they hold illegitimately?
I would argue that your thought process in this regard is EXTREMELY shallow and you have already decided upon your conclusion and are attempting to prove it after the fact.
Ibs, you aren't even interested enough to actually answer two extremely simple questions.
Heck, If you even quoted my post to reply you'd have seen the answers were already there for you.
You have proven that you are not interested in an honest discussion.
As I said earlier, I'll not waste my time on you.
PH45 - good info. Thanks for the effort.
I'm confused? what part of my response shows i'm not interested in answering which questions, which is more than you should expect after going out of your way to offend and hurt me?
you asked: "what does that tell you with respect to racism?"
my answer, having talked to many people of color, some of whom are fairly conservative, was "it tells me that people of color overwhelmingly perceive the republican party as being misaligned to their interests", because I haven't spoken with a single person of color who feels that the republican party supports their interests. If you can show me that their feelings on the matter are invalid, somehow, rather than dismissing their feelings out of hand, rather than yet again invalidating the experience of PoC in this country, then you could claim some kind of high ground. If you make it more clear which questions you feel aren't answered properly, and give me an excuse to show to you how your position is hurtful and dismissive of PoC experiences, you could claim some kind of high ground.
You are absolutely saying that PoC are entirely unentitled to have a problem with the Republican party as a whole. you are absolutely wrong.
What experiences can possibly lead white people to any understanding that would allow them to define racism, other than listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting bare statistics?
Observation. My views have been greatly influenced by people of color but it has also largely been influenced by attempting to improve/revise my explanations of the world with different scenarios I encounter. As I said, racism in the US is extremely complex and cannot be explained by a single perspective. Keep in mind that racism from colonialism is only a single form of racism that exists (it is just the most influential). Other forms of racism due exist so basing a definition from the colonialism perspective has limited use.
Just to be clear, there is a difference from being able to form a generalized theory of racism (which I attempt to do) and trying to explain all the effects of a specific form of racism (which I do not try to do). To explain the effects of our specific form of racism, we would need perspectives from a very large pool of people from all ethic backgrounds. Even then it is difficult since many people can look at the same thing and come to much different conclusions.
what part of my response shows i'm not interested
This part ...
Answer two questions:
1) % of Whites that voted for Obama -
2) % of Blacks that voted for Romney -
Did you? Nope. You just quickly replied with your typical immature emotional response.
You couldn't even be bothered to access some facts nor data with which to support your assumptions.
sorry, i assumed that it was common knowledge that a statistically-insignificant number of african-americans, and an only slightly less insignificant number of other PoC, voted for romney. I assumed that point was rhetorical, I didn't realize you actually wanted the numbers.
But even if not one black person voted for romney, that would go NOWHERE towards identifying racial animus towards white people from blacks. Because it falsely equates "black people not voting for romney" with "white people not voting for Obama" as if Obama had positions as negative to white people as Romney did negative to black people.
You still haven't answered the question.
41% of Whites that voted for Obama.
7% of Blacks that voted for Romney.
Here, since you are too fucking lazy.....
What,if any, conclusion can one draw from the data?
...it tells me that people of colour overwhelmingly perceive the republican party as being misaligned to their interests? Do you argue that this is a perception they hold illegitimately?
It can be argued that blacks are far more racists than whites.
Blacks are 6x more racist than whites.
because I haven't spoken with a single person of color who feels that the republican party supports their interests.
Hahahahaaaaaa... THAT is the funniest thing I've read in some time.
the fact that you think black people can be racist against white people alone is laughable. the fact that you think black people and other PoC reading the GOP as misaligned to their interests is illegitimate is even more laughable.
Observation. ~snip~ Even then it is difficult since many people can look at the same thing and come to much different conclusions.
You obviously have your head on straight, but I'm afraid you're wasting your breath trying to explain to Mr Myopia. :rolleyes:
the fact that you think black people can be racist against white people alone is laughable.
Therein lies YOUR problem. Your mind is far too closed at such a young age.
What truly concerns me is that you actually believe what you post. :yelsick:
You obviously have your head on straight, but I'm afraid you're wasting your breath trying to explain to Mr Myopia. :rolleyes:
OK, I've tried to "like" this several times already...
:thumb:
@classic
55 percent of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney...
does this mean that women are on the whole sexist and hate men?
no, wait, they were both men.
It means that women on the whole decided, by an 11-point gap, decided that the GOP was not aligned with their interests.
Does the fact that only 11% of black people voted for Bush in 2004 mean that it was a racist decision? no, because both candidates were white. Thus, it only meant that black people, in general, found the GOP candidate to be not aligned with their own interests. Why does the fact that 4% fewer voted for Romney than voted for Bush in '04 mean that suddenly those statistics indicate that black people are racist? (hint: they don't at all)
yeah. Stick with that Ibs. Good for you.
Therein lies YOUR problem. Your mind is far too closed at such a young age.
What truly concerns me is that you actually believe what you post. :yelsick:
yeah, but only cause you're racist.
yes, i said it. no, i won't take it back. you're racist if you think that black people have any power whatsoever to oppress white people. because you're wrong, and only your deep-seated racism can explain the fact that black people have never, ever held the power to oppress white people in this country or anywhere else.
and the fact that I know you're about to disagree proves that you have no understanding of what racism means or is.
Is a single PoC here willing to agree that white people should get to define racism?
Is a single woman here willing to agree that men should get to define sexism and patriarchy?
Is a single queer here willing to agree that cishet people should get to define homphobia or transphobia?
just one of you, come on. Just one of any category that isn't cis het white male.
yeah, but only cause you're racist.
yes, i said it. no, i won't take it back
and the fact that I know you're about to disagree proves that you have no understanding of what racism means or is.
There is no need for me to argue, nor disagree with you. You are too ignorant of the basic facts and definitions of the words which you throw around. You've been coddled and cared for your entire life. You live off the money that mommy and daddy send you. You're like the rich hippies I used to hang with at the dead shows. I find it rather amusing. Ibsy riding in on his white horse to save the oppressed.
Young man,you wear your self inflicted oppression like a badge of honor and act as though it earns you respect or something. You expect others to give you some type of "pass" and treat you differently because of it. Not gonna happen. As I already said, I'll not waste my time disagreeing with you or your ridiculous opinion. It, nor you matter enough.
yeah, but only cause you're racist.
yes, i said it. no, i won't take it back. you're racist if you think that black people have any power whatsoever to oppress white people. because you're wrong, and only your deep-seated racism can explain the fact that black people have never, ever held the power to oppress white people in this country or anywhere else.
and the fact that I know you're about to disagree proves that you have no understanding of what racism means or is.
This is not true. I'm sorry, it's just not.
Racism must be defined before that question can be answered. Does racism only mean you think white people are superior to blacks people? Does it mean one race is somehow superior/inferior to another in certain aspects? Does racism apply to only conscious actions or subconscious thoughts and actions as well? Can cultural prejudice be considered racism? Can only people enforcing power be considered racist?
Different people have different definitions of what racism is and it is very easy to have very emotional arguments over something that is purely semantic. Keep in mind that, while I (and I'm assuming you) disagree with this definition, racism is largely defined as limited to people who have extreme animosity towards people of another skin color and racists are considered to be on the same level of those who committed genocide with that definition. This definition is popular here in the United States due to the extreme racism that existed.
Therefore, while my definition of racism is very loose (I think almost everyone who grew up in a racist environment is technically racist to some degree), I need to be careful throwing it around because some people have a much different definition and can, rightfully, take much offense to it.
Dear ph45
You don't need the farcical contrast of Ibby's posts on this subject to make this post look so good, so rational, so wise. You post looks good on its own, and Ibby's posts look ridiculous all on their own. I mention them both at this point because I'm injecting myself into the conversation at this point.
By making clear the important distinctions between emotional reactions to the words and actions of others and the difficulty establishing a definitive, comprehensive meaning for such a subjective idea as "racism". Your measured, thoughtful approach is an example of the best way to discuss such a difficult subject, and the only way to begin to develop solutions to the problems that are created by the effects of racism.
I have a question for you, classic. What percentage of our country do you believe is racist to some degree or another?
My answer to your question is 100%.
I have no time to care about the poor fee-fees of people who uphold and continue racist structures but feel like "omg no i can't be racist i have a black friend and i think the kkk sux gosh if you're going to call people racist youre just gonna turn them off and make them worse" because racism is SO much deeper than consciously having a problem with black people.
and like, [SIZE="4"]I'd basically define racism as "not struggling every day to erase insidious colonialist/imperialist/racist cultural values from your life and actions" [/SIZE]
This is a ridiculous definition. By your definition, someone who struggles every day is not racist, and anyone who doesn't struggle any day is a racist. You're improperly conflating actions and attitudes. Racism is a state of mind. That state of mind is sometimes the energizing force behind some actions, sometimes partly so, more or less, and sometimes there are actions that are completely free from any influence of a given attitude. Not every choice I make as a white man is a racist one or a sexist one, despite the fact that I have color and gender. Buddy, you need to find a different definition, that one is useless. On top of being so preachy that only your most infatuated fans will still give you any serious attention after hearing it.
which is about as broad a definition as it's possible to construe, because the PoC who suffer from the effects of racism and know way better than i do what racism IS say so, and to assume that white people know better about racism than they do is completely fucked up.
So I'll "throw it around" while utterly denying that there is any "rightulness" to their narcissistic offense-taken.
--snip
I dismiss
your offense-taking with an equal measure of righteous disdain. Now we're even.
So, you're saying that PoC know what racism IS, and Pw/oC don't. How the fuck do you know what racism is then? You are not a person of color.
What experiences can possibly lead white people to any understanding that would allow them to define racism, other than listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting bare statistics?
Oh, this is your answer? By listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting statistics. You mean a white racist has no understanding at all of racism? White supremacists don't have any standing in defining racism? You probably don't see how narrow and useless your definition is. You are making a strenuous effort to claim--no--campaign/proselytize/cheerlead for the claims of the only real source of knowledge about racism. You, by your own definition, can't know it, you can only be told about it, so you're just parroting someone else's story.
the fact that you think black people can be racist against white people alone is laughable. --snip
... words fail me here to adequately express how wrong this position is. you may indeed find it laughable, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, only that you are incapable of understanding. You're saying black people can know what racism *IS* but can't *BE* racist against white people? That is bullshit.
Is a single PoC here willing to agree that white people should get to define racism?
Is a single woman here willing to agree that men should get to define sexism and patriarchy?
Is a single queer here willing to agree that cishet people should get to define homphobia or transphobia?
just one of you, come on. Just one of any category that isn't cis het white male.
so... this is about who gets to define terms? you're saying that poc get to define racism? what is the definition then? did you get consensus on that definition? what about mixed race people? does obama get, what, half a vote? "Get to define"... what a stupid proposition.
Ibby, when you post stuff like this, you sound like the most oppressed victim in the history of the world. It makes me wonder why you don't have your on United Nation Protection Force. You're dripping with empathy for some people but those bitter tears blind you completely to the validity of the points of view of other people *outside* your pity party.
Holy Fuck.
I dont give a goddamn if you 'adult' males think Ibby is responding in an emotional immature way, because he has a GREAT point. If only you could walk in a PoC's shoes for ONE DAY, maybe you would get it.
holy fuck indeed.
What makes you think I DON'T "get it"? Give me some example that indicates I don't understand racism. I'd like to hear one. Furthermore, show me an example of how Ibby's got some kind of advantage of understanding of racism over me. One last thing, what exactly is "his GREAT point"?
IAmSam - you described your Lunatic Fringe again.
They're not MY lunatic fringe. Don't give them to me. I don't want them!
*tosses lunatic fringe to Adak*
Phew! *brushes off hands*
Or perhaps you're calling the entire tea party the lunatic fringe? If so, I agree. All else aside, it is lunacy to refuse any and all attempts at political compromise, to just vote "no" on EVERYTHING, and to put the financial future of the entire United States into jepordy just because you don't get every single you want down to the last eye lash.
The tp membership is composed of older, white, affluent males. Evangelicals also tend to be tp members. And as I stated in the other thread, its membership is largely concentrated in the Southern States with a few other places like Montana and the West Slope of otherwise liberal Colorado tagging along just for the hell of it.
The tea party also has a strong racist undertone which it attempts to hum under its breath when the commie liberal press from the East Coast is around, but swells out as loudly as the sound of a battalion of Confederate troops singing "I wish I was back in the land of cotton.
Old times there are not forgotten..."
And I ain't just whistling Dixie, either. From
Wikipedia:
[LIST]
[*]TeaParty.org owner Dale Robertson protested in 2009 with a sign that said "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar"
[*]Placards at protest rallies as early as 2009 have depicted President Obama as a witch doctor, and as having plans for "White Slavery".
[*]During a protest rally in Washington, D.C., before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in March 2010, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon, although it is unclear if this was deliberate, and said he heard the slurs. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".
[*]While attending the March 2010, health care rally in Washington, D.C., Springboro, Ohio, Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted a racist comment on the Springboro Tea Party Twitter page he managed by tweeting "Illegals everywhere today! So many spicks makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?"
[*]Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as "the terrorists' monkey god", and posted other anti-Islamic remarks in May 2010. When questioned by The Washington Post about his comments about Islam, Williams stated the controversy has "been fantastic for the movement". Williams received further criticism in mid-July when he posted a fictional letter named "Colored People" on his blog. Williams said that the letter was a satirical response to a resolution passed by the NAACP calling on Tea Party leaders to "'repudiate the racist element and activities' from within the movement".
(nice try)
[*]Ozark Tea Party steering committee board member Inge Marler opened a June 2012, Arkansas Tea Party rally of over 500 people by telling a racist joke about African-Americans on welfare.
[/LIST]
I appreciate the cultural/emotional/political nuances which must come into play when discussing the definition of "racism." However, I prefer to cut to the chase with that old truism, actions speak louder than words." (see examples above)
From Wiki ...
Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement
FWIW.
Yeah, that works as an excuse if it isn't the leaders and founders of the movement making the racist comments.
The founder of the movement is not a 'fringe'.
Yeah, that works as an excuse if it isn't the leaders and founders of the movement making the racist comments.
The founder of the movement is not a 'fringe'.
Thank-you.
I have completely lost patience with the way it has become a cultural norm to sugar coat everything. I was bemused to discover that children no longer get an "F" on their report card if they fail a subject. Instead, they come home with a note from the school congratulating them on "qualifying" for a special class that will be held after school 2 or 3 days each week. There will be cookies provided and fun games to play. :right: If this "fun" remedial schooling doesn't work, the kid gets promoted to the 4th grade, anyway.
Social Security and Medicare have morphed into something called "entitlements" instead of being earned benefits that almost every American worker has paid for through payroll deductions from their hard earned checks.
The social contract has turned into an "entiltlement," as well - consisting of a set of frivolous expenditures easily discarded in favor of maintaining the "defense" industry and keeping up the cash flow to Hallibuten. The 100,000 civilians killed in the Iraq war when we were "defending" ourselves from a country that had never attacked us were "collateral damage," and torture is now "enhanced interrogation."
The Bill of Rights was ruled null and void under something called the "Patriot Act." It is now "patriotic" to arrest citizens without letting them know what charges are being laid against them and hold them for some indefinate amount of time without trial - there is no more due process under the law, but that's OK because it's "patriotic."
The news media described 20 dead first graders as being "honored" by prayer vigils and through special funds set up in their memory. We used to honor someone (usually an adult) who gave up their life for the sake of some greater good. It is not an "honor" for a six year-old child to be slaughtered by a sociopath with a Bushmaster. It is a tragedy that we grieve ever happened and we mourn for the loss of those babies.
Billionaires are now called "job creators" and "small businessmen" when they outsource hundreds if not thousands of American jobs to China in order to increase dividends to stockholders who hold shares in a "small business" like Apple.
And there are no more people in the American South or anywhere else in the country, for that matter, who hold racist views. The Civil Rights movement of the 60's magically morphed Bubba into Atticus Finch and the few remaining Bubba's hiding out in a swamp somewhere are merely scattered members of the lunatic "fringe."
sent via a downed microwave tower on the Colorado PlateauDon't dither about the word entitlements, it's been using interchangeably in official government documents since the programs were conceived. It carries no hidden agenda, it's simply a syn·o·nym, not a sin-of-name.
As for the rest of your rant, you go girl.;)
Sam, that was awesome.
This line made me choke up a little (and it's a brilliant observation):
It is not an "honor" for a six year-old child to be slaughtered by a sociopath with a Bushmaster. It is a tragedy that we grieve ever happened and we mourn for the loss of those babies.
Sam, that was awesome.
Seconded.
Ibs. I agree that racism (not the only form of discrimination as you know) is easier for WASPs to ignore.
But you don't have to be a horse to judge a horse race.
Don't dither about the word entitlements, it's been using interchangeably in official government documents since the programs were conceived. It carries no hidden agenda, it's simply a syn·o·nym, not a sin-of-name.
Sure, the word "entitlement" began life as a scrappy immigrant from France and quickly found employment in the legal profession, helping to define the rights of various groups and inndividuals.
Alas, the term fell upon hard times when people began to use it as a pejorative:
"Suzy thinks she'd
entitled to get everything for free just because she has some sob story." or "Black people need to get rid of their sense of
entitlement and go find a job like the rest of us."
Poor old entitlement now resides in the inner city, uses food stamps and welfare, and produces a child every year by a different father at the expense of tax payers.
As for the rest of your rant, you go girl.;)
Heh! Don't encourage me.
sent via the cold front which is now producing all that snow falling outside your windowsSeconded.
A third kudos. Eloquently stated.
Political correctness is necessary when an ego overwhelms or displaces logical thought. IamSam is completely correct by having little patience with those who need things sugarcoated. Who may even deny their inability to cope with hard reality. Who will even post
Go fuck yourself.
using insults, soundbytes, and cheapshots to defend emotional biases or racist attitudes. Such emotions is sufficient to deny reality when sugarcoating does not work.
An emotional type will probably assume he has been labeled a racist rather grasp logic in that paragraph. Jumping to an emotional conclusion rather than read, grasp, or address the point.
We know which party most attracts and condons racists. As demonstrated so bluntly during Sen Strom Thurmond's last birthday party. So we should call it a 'disagreement' or 'misconception'? Hell no. A racist needs political correctness; to even deny he is racist. Only political correctness or angry denial (similar concepts) will avert that reality.
The most emotional who therefore hate or support extremist Republican positions with politically correct rhetoric will also post profanity rather than admit to biases. A sharp difference from moderate Republicans who are now under attack by their own party. Republican party (especially Tea Party) is popular among 'fringe' (ie hate) groups. And other disenfranchised members of society who have plenty of anger rather than a logical grasp. Fringe types will even post profanity rather than admit to a problem common to their poltiical peers.
Profanity is desperation when politically correct (sugarcoated) spin is routinely challenged and exposed.
And other disenfranchised members of society who have plenty of anger rather than a logical grasp.
I run into a lot of those, mad as hell that the country/government is so fucked up, but no idea how or why it got that way because the don't have a handle on how the government works. They've no clue that the government got that way because they let other people run it, rather than learning how to participate.
A Boeing contract negotiator once told the union reps, "You've had it too good for too long". I think that's what happened to America, with the advent of the huge middle (consumer) class, we had it too good for too long, and neglected our duty to protect ourselves from the government being taken over by selfish interests. Hell, have the people don't even bother to vote, no less participate.
I wonder if there's enough time to educate people how/what they have to do to turn this around before it's too late. Just voting every four years won't cut it.
Yeah, what was that cookie? The price of taking no interest in public affairs is to ruled by evil men, or some such.
Political correctness is necessary when an ego overwhelms or displaces logical thought. IamSam is completely correct by having little patience with those who need things sugarcoated. Who may even deny their inability to cope with hard reality. Who will even post using insults, soundbytes, and cheapshots to defend emotional biases or racist attitudes...
An emotional type will probably assume he has been labeled a racist rather grasp logic in that paragraph. Jumping to an emotional conclusion rather than read, grasp, or address the point.
Yes, the use of logic seems to have become a lost art. It's bad enough that the Republican Party is being destroyed from within and that the entire country is being held hostage by a group of true believers who favor the use of dogma over reason. But the situation is made even worse when reasonable people are afraid to recognize unpleasant truths, never mind verbalize them, because political correctness has made the entire subject taboo.
Unfortunately, problems like racism, the gun lobby’s desire to put an assault weapon in the hands of every single American –man, woman, and child – and turn the entire country into a war zone, etc. etc – all the serious issues which now face us – will not go away because one side is afraid to name them out loud and the other side lacks the ability to do anything but call everyone else dirty names.
I run into a lot of those, mad as hell that the country/government is so fucked up, but no idea how or why it got that way because the don't have a handle on how the government works. They've no clue that the government got that way because they let other people run it, rather than learning how to participate.
A Boeing contract negotiator once told the union reps, "You've had it too good for too long". I think that's what happened to America, with the advent of the huge middle (consumer) class, we had it too good for too long, and neglected our duty to protect ourselves from the government being taken over by selfish interests. Hell, have the people don't even bother to vote, no less participate.
I wonder if there's enough time to educate people how/what they have to do to turn this around before it's too late. Just voting every four years won't cut it.
In earlier decades Americans may not have voted out of complacency, but now they don’t vote because they know their vote won’t count. Gerrymandering has created Congressional districts that represent a political party and not the people who should make up its constituency. Outside interests then funnel in vast sums of money via PAC’s to the candidate whose mission it is to obstruct all attempts at passing any law that corporate America doesn’t like.
The Constitution of Madison and the system of checks and balances has been deemed contrary to the will of special interests, so those same special interests are now trying to push the Constitution out the door, along with quaint ideas like democracy or living in a republic.
The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote of the people of the US. Instead, the Electoral College system allows the voters in 10 or so states to determine who will be elected president – the rest of us just get to cheer from the sidelines.
Any voter who still isn’t dismayed by all of the above faces voter suppression laws and 7 hour lines, along with requests for “your papers, please.”
I’m surprised anyone still votes at all.
sent via horse with lightening feet/a mane like distant rain/the turquoise horse/a black star for an eye/white shell teeth/Pony that feeds on the pollen of flowers - courtesy Gary Snyder
"Profanity is desperation when politically correct (sugarcoated) spin is routinely challenged and exposed."
Sometimes, this is indeed the case.
Often, though, a 'go fuck yourself' is the standard reply (that should be) directed at one who makes no cogent or clarified (or accurate) point and who deserves nuthin' more than dismissal.
'nuff said.
Often, though, a 'go fuck yourself' is the standard reply (that should be) directed at one who makes no cogent or clarified (or accurate) point and who deserves nuthin' more than dismissal.
IOW still an adult who posts like a child. Who knows only what an ego says. Only the mentally weakest waste bandwidth with profanity.
That profanity is best directed at a mirror. Only place where that 'intelligence' can be appreciated.
You two should get a room where you can "carry on" in private.
In earlier decades Americans may not have voted out of complacency, but now they don’t vote because they know their vote won’t count. Gerrymandering has created Congressional districts that represent a political party and not the people who should make up its constituency. Outside interests then funnel in vast sums of money via PAC’s to the candidate whose mission it is to obstruct all attempts at passing any law that corporate America doesn’t like.
Party? What is a party without it's strength, which is being able to guaranty votes.
Big money PACs? What is a PAC without it's strength, which is being able to buy air-time to influence the uninformed.
Neither of those can do jack shit if the people don't play along. The ballot box is still the bottom line, so the voters have to get informed and involved from the very bottom. They should make an informed choice of who their dogcatcher is going to be, who their school board is going to be, all the way up to the President.
Going around saying their vote doesn't count, is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Looks like Rove and the Tea Party are going to war...
Karl Rove's American Crossroads has started a new group to make sure the 2014 Senate races produce zero Todd Akins. But it turns out some conservatives like Rove less than Akin. The Conservative Victory Project will spend money in Republican primaries to defeat far-right candidates, The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny reported this weekend. Republicans like Rove see Republicans like Akin, who failed to beat vulnerable Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and Richard Mourdock, who knocked off Indiana's Sen. Richard Lugar in the GOP primary but failed to win the general election in a state that Mitt Romney won by 10 points, are costing the party winnable Senate seats. The backlash was immediate.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/roves-no-more-akins-group-outrages-conservatives/61761/
The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has begun. On one side is the Tea Party. On the other side stand Karl Rove and his establishment team, posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the “biggest donors in the Republican Party” have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project. The Times reports that this new group will dedicate itself to “recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.” The group points to candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Richard Mourdock in Indiana as examples of Tea Party primary picks going sideways in major Senatorial battles.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/03/Rove-declares-war-Tea-PartyI find that a bit hard to follow, but the gist is that Rove and some others have realised that far-right types may win pre-selection but lose elections, is that it?
It's a bloody scary moment when the sensible sounding moderate in the group is Karl Rove. :eek:
I find that a bit hard to follow, but the gist is that Rove and some others have realised that far-right types may win pre-selection but lose elections, is that it?
Basically. I do think it goes deeper than just electability but this is what Rove is saying publicly.
There are some major philosophical differences between the Establishment (Rove) and Tea Party Republicans and the fighting has steadily become more public since the election. Essentially, the two groups are in complete disagreement about why they lost and how to proceed from here. The Establishment Republicans see a shrinking demographic base while the Tea Party Republicans see "unpure" candidates. Therefore, the Establishment want to go left while the Tea Party wants to go right.
Party? What is a party without it's strength, which is being able to guaranty votes.
Big money PACs? What is a PAC without it's strength, which is being able to buy air-time to influence the uninformed.
Neither of those can do jack shit if the people don't play along.
And play along they do, despite the fact that both parties are only concerned about their own agendas rather than "we, the people". Even if only 20% of eligible voters turn out, the party which convinces the majority to vote they way they want, is showing all the strength that party needs. After all, they got their guy in the White House, right?
The ballot box is still the bottom line, so the voters have to get informed and involved from the very bottom. They should make an informed choice of who their dogcatcher is going to be, who their school board is going to be, all the way up to the President.
This is a given, but informed voters are scarce as hen teeth in this country. The ignorance of the average citizen used to amaze me. However, anymore I'm amazed when I encounter someone who actually make a point of being informed and not by Rush Limbaugh, either.
I hate to sound like my mother, but what the hell do they teach kids in the schools these days? They graduate from high school with their only "science" class being intelligent design, they can't place any of the 50 states on a US map, and they're functionally illiterate. I blame this in part on evangelicals with their passion for home schooling (blind leading blind), and voter refusal to provide funding for rural school districts and urban districts which serve mainly low income and/or minority students.
Going around saying their vote doesn't count, is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Given Citizen's United, given the high cost of running for national office, and given the concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of a wealthy few, etc., etc., our electorial process has become hopelessly broken. We need something like the Occupy Movement, only this time around with competent people in leadership positions and workable solutions for the problems this country now faces.
I'm getting fed up with Halliburton being the sole choice on the ballot.
I blame this in part on evangelicals with their passion for home schooling (blind leading blind), and voter refusal to provide funding for rural school districts and urban districts which serve mainly low income and/or minority students.
Inflation, everything has gone up. That $2500 Chevy is now $25000, but the cars have (arguably) improved considerably. Well, school taxes have climbed too. (They just tore down my high school and replaced it with a new one. $67,450,000 for 1400 students, $1,000,000 for the fucking "executive" offices. :rolleyes:)
Anyway, the taxpayers see this money being poured into schools and then look at the [strike] product [/strike] damn whippersnappers graduating. No matter how much money you spend, how many facilities you provide, you can't beat the culture they are raised in. This is especially true in the ghetto, where brand new schools and brand new equipment has been destroyed almost overnight.
The schools are also so embroiled in politically correct bullshit, they don't have ability to teach the most important lesson a student can learn... life ain't fair.
<snip>
The schools are also so embroiled in politically correct bullshit, they don't have ability to teach the most important lesson a student can learn... life ain't fair.
They're leaving that lesson to be taught by the Republican Party.
They don't have to teach kids that life isn't fair. The world does that without any assistance from parents and teachers. Some people, in their attempts to offset the damage done by the fact that life very much is not fair, overdo lessons in the other direction, true.
If you look at the average intake of the more challenged schools, I bet most of those kids have already learned that life is not fair. They're steeped in the unfairness of life. What they need to learn is that life being unfair does not necessarily mean they are hamstrung from the start. They need to learn that words like 'successful' 'respected' and 'achiever' can attach to them too.
[YOUTUBE]k6uGURMdjME[/YOUTUBE]
What they need to learn is that life being unfair does not necessarily mean they are hamstrung from the start. They need to learn that words like 'successful' 'respected' and 'achiever' can attach to them too.
That's where the culture comes in. If the parents/family don't impose(not offer), those values on the kid, the street culture will call them to the dark side. The problem now is, there have been so many generations living in the welfare trap, it's harder to find parents with those values anymore.
I'd say life is a little bit fair, with no guarantees. If you work hard (and smart) and play by the rules, you have an increased chance of a good life. Be lazy and break rules, you have an increased chance of a sucky life. There is no certainty, but you CAN tip the odds. I think that is what needs to be taught.
No matter what, you're going to get the short end of the stick sometimes. If you're cognizant of that, mentally prepared, it's a lot easier to handle. Physically and financially prepared is even better.
Of course the best preparation is a plan for massive and swift retaliation, the right untraceable equipment, and an alibi.
I'd say life is a little bit fair, with no guarantees. If you work hard (and smart) and play by the rules, you have an increased chance of a good life. Be lazy and break rules, you have an increased chance of a sucky life. There is no certainty, but you CAN tip the odds. I think that is what needs to be taught.
This.
HA!
No, it's not.
Little Johnny Shitpants comes into the world stupid, ugly, and sickly.
Little Jackie Sparklypants comes into the world smart, beautiful, and robust.
Where's your 'fairness'?
Only in your head, a place Reality gives not one shit about.
##
"the best preparation is a plan for massive and swift retaliation"
Yes.
Better: 'Get up early in the morning and kill them first.'
US Postal Service again wants to end Saturday delivery. Is that good or bad?
Have extremists (Tea Party) been told yet to how to think? What is the party line?
As soon as they hear the union is against it, they will support it.
Republicans like Marco Rubio couldn't even decide on a candy bar.
The Weekly Standard
Daniel Harper
Feb 15, 2013
Rubio: 'Biggest Foreign Policy Problem' Is Obama's 'Refusal to Lead'
In an article titled, "Refusal to Lead," Republican senator Marco Rubio writes,
"The biggest foreign policy problem facing the United States right now is not too much U.S. engagement,
but the danger of a world in which we increasingly refuse to lead.
There are few global challenges that can be solved without decisive American leadership."
...
Fox News
2/18/13
Republicans rip Obama immigration plan; Rubio calls it 'dead on arrival'
Congressional Republicans on Sunday criticized a White House plan on immigration reform
that allows illegal immigrants to become legal, permanent residents within eight years
<snip>
Rubio -- part of an eight-member, bipartisan Senate panel working on an immigration reform bill
-- also said the proposal was disappointing to those “working on serious solutions” and repeats failures of past legislation.
He said the White House also erred in not seeking input from Republican lawmakers.
...
[YOUTUBE]_TA3c1YqCiI[/YOUTUBE]
There are few global challenges that can be solved without decisive American leadership."
What about the global challenge posed by American interventionism?
Shush now Dana, take your pill, watch TV. All is well. But only because the government is taking care of things.