Republicans, what is wrong with you?
- Thread starter Jim Craik
- Start date
I take it you think that is a good thing?
"There's got to be a better way
For you and for me
To turn this hypocrisy round
The growth of a nation
Can not be achieved
By keeping the down trodden down"
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Nick,
It really seems to me that the modern Republican/tea party is trying to turn our great Nation into a third world country.
When teachers and bus drivers make so little that they can only afford food and Heath care our economy is TOAST!!
The Republican party is now being led by a small faction with the lowest IQ, nothing good will come of this!
It really seems to me that the modern Republican/tea party is trying to turn our great Nation into a third world country.
When teachers and bus drivers make so little that they can only afford food and Heath care our economy is TOAST!!
The Republican party is now being led by a small faction with the lowest IQ, nothing good will come of this!
I just had to resurect this thread after reading the day's newspaper. Seems the talks to extend our ability to borrow money (and therefore to pay our bills) has taken a very unusual turn.
The Republicans had held the issue hostage insisting that we do this in a BIG way so as to not saddle our children with the problem. Of course, they proposed their usual spending cuts as the manner in which to fix the problem.
Seems now, though, the Republicans have switched horses in the middle of the stream. The Republican SOTH now says there will not be any bill passed that includes ANY tax increases....including allowing the Gee-DUB era temporary tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.
So, the Republicans are NOW proposing a smaller budget reduction figure, and STILL insist that the spending cuts involve reductions in benefits to those who can least afford the reduced income, the poor and disabled.
So....what IS wrong with the Republicans, I ask. Don't they realize that the majority of their constituency are baby boomers...and very soon we baby boomers will be a HUGE voting block to deal with. Do they really believe they can prevail in such a misguided system in which they enrich only the wealthy, all the time leaving the middle and lower classes to bear not just the majority, but ALL of the methods of bringing our deficit spending to a halt?
I know that the demographics of this forum is probably pretty heavily weighted in favor of the conservative viewpoint...I mean, after all, we middle class and poor folks cannot afford these "toys", so to speak, only the wealthy can do so. I'm hoping somebody can help me understand this reversal of roles for the Republicans. I understand the political posturing and expect this is all related to the next election, but between the more liberal-leaning youth in this country and the soon-to-be alienated baby boomers, do the Republicans really believe that they stand a chance of gaining a majority in congress AND/OR a change in the White House?
I just don't see it......help me experience that :idea: moment, please.
Cheers from Doug!!
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Doug,
I think that the Republicans are in something of a "box", caused by the recent appearance of the tea party.
In order to keep their jobs (win the next primary), they must move far to the right, removing any chance of compramise. If they agree to anything to the left of nothing, they well not win the next primary.
A good example of this is McCain. He was long a moderate, who I liked. Now, after this last election, he has been forced to move way right, now he hates immigrents, now he want a fence on the border, now he is OK with tourture..........
Moderate Republicans are a thing of the past, they have all been forced to move way right.
This will cause the decline of the Republican Party for years and years.
I think that the Republicans are in something of a "box", caused by the recent appearance of the tea party.
In order to keep their jobs (win the next primary), they must move far to the right, removing any chance of compramise. If they agree to anything to the left of nothing, they well not win the next primary.
A good example of this is McCain. He was long a moderate, who I liked. Now, after this last election, he has been forced to move way right, now he hates immigrents, now he want a fence on the border, now he is OK with tourture..........
Moderate Republicans are a thing of the past, they have all been forced to move way right.
This will cause the decline of the Republican Party for years and years.
Well, the political pendulum does swing, doesn't it. Sounds like today's Republican party has become as "polar" as was the Democratic party during the days of "Camelot" under JFK.
I agree with the TEA party...the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the TEA party is very good at inflamatory rhetoric, as well as despicable acts designed to bring about enhanced feelings of disenfranchisement among their supporters. They are a very VISIBLE facet of the "conservative" totality...I'm not sure they represent what the current Republican Party is about, but in retrospect I suspect the Republican Party might well not have been able to survive the past election without them, so there is probably a bit of "back-scratching" going on.
Seems to me that your estimation of cognitive development might just be correct :thumbsup:
Cheers from Doug!
I agree with the TEA party...the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the TEA party is very good at inflamatory rhetoric, as well as despicable acts designed to bring about enhanced feelings of disenfranchisement among their supporters. They are a very VISIBLE facet of the "conservative" totality...I'm not sure they represent what the current Republican Party is about, but in retrospect I suspect the Republican Party might well not have been able to survive the past election without them, so there is probably a bit of "back-scratching" going on.
Seems to me that your estimation of cognitive development might just be correct :thumbsup:
Cheers from Doug!
Jim you are spot on......but I have to disagree with your last sentence.
Strict conservatism will win my team the next election....BUT if they get weak kneed and move to the left they will probibly lose..
How knowledgable are you regarding the "normal curve"?
It is a way of representing the "total population" of a specific group. Longitudinal research has validated the concept that the majority of any group lies within a spread of about 34.5% (the width of the first "standard deviation) to each side of the "mean"--this would be the broad average "centrist" philosophy that does not allign itself with either the liberal or conservative philosophy. If this concept is spread to political ideation, then it is safe to speculate that the TEA party lies outside not just the first standard (average) deviation, it most likely lies at the limits of the "normal" population, which is two standard deviations from the mean, at which point 95.5% of the sample population lies within the area of the curve. This would include the traditional "liberal" and "conservative" idealogies, leaving only about 2.25% to occupy the "WAAAY out there" population outside of of the "normal" liberals and conservatives...to represent the [my term here] "lunatic fringe" radical liberals and radical conservatives. I view the TEA party as a radical conservative faction, not sure what name the radical liberals would be called.
In other words, to believe that the TEA party represents the FAR RIGHT of the political spectrum, or only 1% of the voters, whichever "test group" you want to specify, it seems that your "Strict conservatism" really has little chance of prevailing.
In actuality, though, the TEA party does wield considerable influence over the Conservative population, so since I generally associate myself with the liberals on this forum, I'll be generous (something we can NEVER accuse the conservatives of being) and give you yet another standard deviation...in statistical terms that is a HUGE concession, but let's assume your TEA party is totally successful and EVERY "conservative" voter votes with the TEA Party. Your "strict conservatism" vote then literally SWELLS to a huge 14% of the voting population. The remaining 86% is occupied by the liberals as well as the centrist "average" standardization to both sides of the strict "middle of the road".
Still a bit small, don't you think, to ensure world domination?
I respectfully propose that the party which most appeals to the broad "average" or "centrist" population will most likely prevail in the next elections. There will be winners and losers in both parties, let's hope that those who replace the losers get the idea that their loyalties lie with their constituents rather than their party's philosophies. The old saying "The needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few" applies here, doesn't matter whether you're greedy conservative or greedy liberal.
Jim, maybe it isn't the Conservatives' cognitive development that is the issue here, perhaps it is their contact with reality :thumbsup:
Cheers from Doug!
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Doug, once again you have impressed with your grasp if statistical deduction.
I think good support for your deductions comes from this..........
Four years ago, when the Republicans were in an election that they thought the could win, by this time in the election cycle, big names had jumped into the ring. Additionally by this time in the election cycle the Republicans had raised huge amounts of money. This time very little has been raised.
At this point in 2007 the Republican Candidates had raised over.......$118 million.
This year Republican Candadates have raised only.........................$35.6 million.
It seems the (SMART MONEY) can see what is going to happen. Unfortunalty for our right wing friends on the fourm, Fox is not telling them this, so they have no idea. We have to bring the bad news and they do not believe us.
This year the Republicans with a chance of gaining the undesided vote are staying on the sidelines, instead we have had the likes of Mr Gingridge, Mr Trump, Mr Palenty, Ms Backman, Ms Palin and Mr Romney.
The big wheels in the Republican party can see what is going to happen and are hiding (smart move).
The rest are all fighting to be the Captain of the Titanic!
I think good support for your deductions comes from this..........
Four years ago, when the Republicans were in an election that they thought the could win, by this time in the election cycle, big names had jumped into the ring. Additionally by this time in the election cycle the Republicans had raised huge amounts of money. This time very little has been raised.
At this point in 2007 the Republican Candidates had raised over.......$118 million.
This year Republican Candadates have raised only.........................$35.6 million.
It seems the (SMART MONEY) can see what is going to happen. Unfortunalty for our right wing friends on the fourm, Fox is not telling them this, so they have no idea. We have to bring the bad news and they do not believe us.
This year the Republicans with a chance of gaining the undesided vote are staying on the sidelines, instead we have had the likes of Mr Gingridge, Mr Trump, Mr Palenty, Ms Backman, Ms Palin and Mr Romney.
The big wheels in the Republican party can see what is going to happen and are hiding (smart move).
The rest are all fighting to be the Captain of the Titanic!
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Jim, I don't believe in this idea. Is I watch and ponder the changes in social attitudes, I've concluded that the modern stanch Republican/Tea Party demographic is not trying to turn our nation into a third world country. What they are trying to do is increase their wealth (as anybody has a right to do) without regard to any impact outside of their personal "bubble". In other words IF the nation becomes a third world country as a result of their endeavors, they are quite comfortable in their favorable position.
It's kind of like Haiti. Rather than help their country's destroyed infrastructure, the wealthy instead buy larger Range Rovers so that they can still traverse the roads when nobody else can. The "it's all about me" philosophy has become a rule rather an exception. Any thought process outside of that narrow point of view becomes targeted as "weak kneed, jello spined liberal hog wash". It's such a shame.
If 40% of our spending comes from borrowing, and the goal is to balance the budget, then in essence we must reduce our government by 40%. Who in their right mind thinks that is going to happen. Tax increases AND spending cuts are inevitable...period.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Terry,
You are absolutly right, this is not an "on purpose" thing. I do not like what you say, but yet you are right.
We now have good Americans perfictly willing to throw teaches under the bus because their unions often support Democratic candidates.
They say SCREW SOCIAL SECURITY, these millonares need tax breaks!
You are absolutly right, this is not an "on purpose" thing. I do not like what you say, but yet you are right.
We now have good Americans perfictly willing to throw teaches under the bus because their unions often support Democratic candidates.
They say SCREW SOCIAL SECURITY, these millonares need tax breaks!
Last edited:
Right it's the unions that gave teachers a bad name not their deplorable record of lower (and still slipping) test scores, teachers teaching their personal political views (remember the OBAMA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE!!!!), or any of the other issues that these people are responsible for. Lets not even get into the TENURE issue because that is the biggest B.S. EVER!!!!! Your right teachers are getting a bad rap only because of their unions not because they as a group have not lived up to all that they get already. Never has there been such a bunch of cry babies. Look at how wonderful the current teacher I mean pres. is doing. The real world is very different than the world of unicorns the current crop of teachers lives in!!!!!
The teachers of old have long since past and I do not include them in any of my statements. The day of caring for your kids has long passed fellas. I do admit that part of the problem is todays parents but only a small part. Case in point I had to go to a meeting with the school principal (who then went to the board) because of incorrect facts in my kids book. Funny that the book was written by one of the teachers (who didn't like me correcting him)!!!! I'll stop railing against you guys as a whole when you step up and do your darn jobs like teaching my kids actual facts and not fantasy or what you would like reality to be!!!!
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I usually stay out of this, but I do have a comment to make: I don't think anyone would disagree that the GOP has moved to the right by quite a distance. It's interesting, though, to speculate about WHY that occurred. My theory, FWIW, is that the Clinton presidency moved the Democratic Party towards the center, and this left the GOP with a couple of choices: fight it out for the middle, or move to the right. They moved to the right.
Another comment: the Democratic modus operandi seems to be roughly this: campaign to the left, then move to the center. The GOP modus operandi seems to be to campaign to the far right, and then move to the center. It might save everyone a lot of time and trouble, not to mention expense, if we just all agreed to move to the center. Or at least closer to the center.
OK, now I'll duck, and here come the slings and arrows.....
Another comment: the Democratic modus operandi seems to be roughly this: campaign to the left, then move to the center. The GOP modus operandi seems to be to campaign to the far right, and then move to the center. It might save everyone a lot of time and trouble, not to mention expense, if we just all agreed to move to the center. Or at least closer to the center.
OK, now I'll duck, and here come the slings and arrows.....
No arrows or slings from me, jimbo! I believe centrist is the ground that most of us Americans inhabit, therefore I believe that according to the concept of "greater good" our political leaders need to mimic the vast majority.
Hadn't thought about it, but your theory about Clinton moving the Democratic party to a more centrist posture certainly makes sense now that you put it so succinctly!
.....I hate to say it, but Rodney King might well have gotten it right when he said "Why can't we all just get along?"
Seems to me Bee-OH is trying to move to a more centrist posture, too. The conservatives have branded him the "Liberal Devil", but he's starting to sound much like a moderate Republican (if there are any left :huh: ).
Cheers from Doug!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jimbo,
Thanks for joining in, these debates very much need calm middle ground folks.
You may be right about the Dems going to the middle.
I kind of have a different take on the Republicans righ turn though.
I seems to me that until the last election, the Republicans were fairly center too. They nominated McCain, who at that time was fairly center, kind of like Bush.
McCain was part of the "bail out" and part of the General Motors Chrisler thing.
It seems to me that the Tea Party, the hard right thing really took only took off after Obama was elected.
Almost immediately, before he even took office, we started hearing Impeach Obama, take back our country he is not a citizen, don't retreat, reload talk.
Take back our Country from who? The fairly elected President?
I'm afraid to say this but it appears to me that the whole far right movement started because a very small group of folks were not ready for a minority President. They wanted to take our Country back from Obama, even before he took office.
The early tea party rallies very angry folks with hate filled signs. I do not recall seeing that type of activity before. Why the hate, even before he took office?
Ok, I have donned my nomex, fire away.
Thanks for joining in, these debates very much need calm middle ground folks.
You may be right about the Dems going to the middle.
I kind of have a different take on the Republicans righ turn though.
I seems to me that until the last election, the Republicans were fairly center too. They nominated McCain, who at that time was fairly center, kind of like Bush.
McCain was part of the "bail out" and part of the General Motors Chrisler thing.
It seems to me that the Tea Party, the hard right thing really took only took off after Obama was elected.
Almost immediately, before he even took office, we started hearing Impeach Obama, take back our country he is not a citizen, don't retreat, reload talk.
Take back our Country from who? The fairly elected President?
I'm afraid to say this but it appears to me that the whole far right movement started because a very small group of folks were not ready for a minority President. They wanted to take our Country back from Obama, even before he took office.
The early tea party rallies very angry folks with hate filled signs. I do not recall seeing that type of activity before. Why the hate, even before he took office?
Ok, I have donned my nomex, fire away.
Last edited:
Statistics were "my life" for 32 years.....we psych types call it "psychobabble". Perhaps that is the reason that this is one of my favorite songs, it's called "Statistician's Blues", hope you like it:
YouTube - Todd Snider - Statistician's Blues
The line "Stuck between hope and doubt" also relates to the issue of this thread...that's where I am, stuck between hope and doubt that the pollies can resolve, or at least put aside, their partisan philosophical differences and "...git 'er done". Todd even has an answer as to who to blame for this brouhaha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBD_d9SZYnw&NR=1
I can attest to that fact...that lifelong friend with whom I cannot now communicate and who had never demonstrated any form of aggressive behavior all of a sudden started shopping for a hunting rifle. I was very perplexed by this behavior and asked why...after all, he was not a hunter. His comment....."...reach out and touch someone". I asked who. He said the POTUS. I swear, if there is ever any form of attempt made on Bee-OH's life, and particularly if that attempt is made in the center part of our country, I'll be convinced he had something to do with it. He was never overtly racist, but for some reason this issue has so totally changed him that he's unbearable now...he seems to have adopted ANGER as his method of dealing with the election of Obama over McCain.
Cheers from Doug!
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Doug,
You'll love this......
The brave Republican Congresional leaders have figured out how to extend the debt ceiling. Without any political repercussions.
They said that there is a way to introduce a bill that extends the Debt ceiling, then the brave Republicans will vote against the bill, then they send it to the President, who vetoes, the no vote. There by extending the debt ceiling.
This allows the brave weasels to pass the extension that they know must pass, but they all can claim that they voted ageist the exstention.
Do they take us to be fools?
They obviously think they can fool the tea party, I bet they are right.
By and large Conservatives are a gullible bunch, easly tricked, this accounts for the success of Fox!
You'll love this......
The brave Republican Congresional leaders have figured out how to extend the debt ceiling. Without any political repercussions.
They said that there is a way to introduce a bill that extends the Debt ceiling, then the brave Republicans will vote against the bill, then they send it to the President, who vetoes, the no vote. There by extending the debt ceiling.
This allows the brave weasels to pass the extension that they know must pass, but they all can claim that they voted ageist the exstention.
Do they take us to be fools?
They obviously think they can fool the tea party, I bet they are right.
By and large Conservatives are a gullible bunch, easly tricked, this accounts for the success of Fox!
Last edited:
Similar threads
