Are the Republican Party even wanted anymore?

Dolos

Originally posted by Lestov16
Between John Boehner and his flunkies obstructing a reasonable fiscal cliff deal that would benefit most Americans and putting the US economy at risk several times to benefit the top 2%, Senators voting down a disability rights bill, and now Michigan politicians funded by the Koch brothers trying to take away union rights in an attempt to cut off Democratic funding, I have to ask. Are they needed in US politics? They have done nothing progressive in a very long time and seem to be hellbent on waging war against the majority of Americans it is supposed to serve in defense of the wealthy elite. Their conservative desire to halt moderate progress is crippling our country, and they are the cause. I know we only have to wait until November '14 to get these bastards out, but we can already tell they are spiteful enough to leave and destroy the US with it since they can't rule it. How evil...

Well you're classifying a whole group of people here.

I don't know enough about it to say the Republicans are unnecessary. It would take a hell of a lot to convince me that an entire party that has been resilient for the better part of a century is now outdated. Then saying they're evil is a whole other ball game. I am friends with a lot of Republicans, but I am a democrat myself...in real life.

My online Persona is the opposite, the definition of a scheming Anarchist bastard. Dolos manipulates the stock market, using his genius to predict which stocks will go up and down at precise times to quickly gain control of the global economy and crash the monetary system.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Dolos
It would take a hell of a lot to convince me that an entire party that has been resilient for the better part of a century is now outdated.

Why would being old make it harder to convince you that they're out of date?

Lestov16

I forgot also, they actually ran that turd Mitt Romney, who ran a campaign based entirely on lies and fear-mongering. I don't know what's worse: the fact that he actually had a majority in some states (even if you hate Obama, there is no possible way you could see Romney leading this country's path into a positive outcome) or the fact that Republicans thought we were stupid enough not to see through his bullshit facade.

And it's even more hilarious because Romney was the best they could come up with, and the runner-up, Rick Santorum, is now working with some conspiracy/scam website, Rick Perry releasing horrifically homophobic ads, and all the other cretins from the primaries.

My question is why is it this way? How did we allow our Congress turn into our worst enemy? Who is voting these people in? Why can't we produce better politicians? The Republican Party has actually dissolved into Tammany Hall, with Boehner serving as Tweed.

Dolos

Could have happened to democrats. It's not what party you're in, it's who makes smarter decisions with what they have. Sometimes you need both, that's why I think this country will endure it's toughest phase yet, because we want Republicans, and we want Democrats - they're showing signs of cooperating, of compromising. That's a lot like joining forces. They are weaker apart than they are together, because both parties are lacking in certain areas, and we aren't really in a position where we can use one without the other anymore.

Hate to go against the doctrine of Killing Them Softly, but business has become hyper-diplomatic. The only problem is the Republicans who are extremely aggressive aren't cooperating, but we need them as well because businesses are becoming more cut-throat and competitive as well.

Flyattractor

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/deanzerbe/files/2010/12/1217_barack-obama-santa_400x400.jpg

Dolos

Originally posted by Flyattractor

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/deanzerbe/files/2010/12/1217_barack-obama-santa_400x400.jpg

Obama will go down as the Einstein of politics. The one who tried to unite the Republicans and the Democrats, giving the US something it's never had before, cooperation. A new theory that when tested proves successful in running things.

Flyattractor

Man. You didn't drink the Kool Aid. You got an IV and a 8 ball.

focus4chumps

Originally posted by Dolos
Obama will go down as the Einstein of politics. The one who tried to unite the Republicans and the Democrats...

so he gets to be einstein by failing to achieve it?

i think he was an idiot for trying in the first place.

Tzeentch._

This Dolos guy is creeping me out a little.

Dolos

Originally posted by focus4chumps
so he gets to be einstein by failing to achieve it?

i think he was an idiot for trying in the first place.

I feel ya.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would being old make it harder to convince you that they're out of date?

I think the word "resilient" is the keyword in his post that answers your question. Unlike previous parties that faded from the American Political Dynamic, the GOP is still getting elected in significant numbers. At least, that's how I read that portion of his post. I could be wrong in my interpretation.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I forgot also, they actually ran that turd Mitt Romney, who ran a campaign based entirely on lies and fear-mongering. I don't know what's worse: the fact that he actually had a majority in some states (even if you hate Obama, there is no possible way you could see Romney leading this country's path into a positive outcome) or the fact that Republicans thought we were stupid enough not to see through his bullshit facade.

And it's even more hilarious because Romney was the best they could come up with, and the runner-up, Rick Santorum, is now working with some conspiracy/scam website, Rick Perry releasing horrifically homophobic ads, and all the other cretins from the primaries.

I agree, Lestov. You are putting into words what I was unable during the election.

Originally posted by Lestov16
My question is why is it this way? How did we allow our Congress turn into our worst enemy? Who is voting these people in? Why can't we produce better politicians? The Republican Party has actually dissolved into Tammany Hall, with Boehner serving as Tweed.

You must realize that there are GOP peeps that are more liberal than many Dems. There are some GOP members that are moderates and have more sense than the majority of the GOP and Dems. Same goes for the Dems. There are reasonable, informed, and educated members in most political parties.

Oliver North

yes, nearly 50% of the nation still voted for them in the federal election

Archaeopteryx

Lestov16

Dividers? Why should he and the majority of the nation have to compromise and sacrifice their basic needs so the top 2% can profit more than they already exorbitantly do. That's the disgusting thing about it. The 2% don't even need to worry about the tax hike affecting their overall wealth and living conditions, but Republicans still won't compromise, out of a mix of greed and spite.

Obama shouldn't have to compromise a damn thing. The plans he and his administration have been putting on the table would undoubtedly benefit everyone across the board, hell, even Warren Buffett came up with a reasonable plan, but the Republicans are being unreasonable and are staunchly supporting 2% of the population, at the detriment of the rest. They are the ones who need to fold, as they are clearly in the wrong here, and Obama shouldn't have to adjust his plan so that the livelihood of middle-class workers can be sacrificed, even a little, so a wealthy CEO can make even more money than they need. It's an utterly senseless sacrifice and the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for demanding it.

I think this is the point where business-influencing-government has become more blatant than ever before, as now basic rights are being attacked purely for profit. Our economy is actually being held hostage, for the second time in 4 years, and for literally no logical reason (as billionaire CEOs do not need the smidgens more that they would pay in taxes).

I'm just honestly shocked that riots aren't breaking out to get these people out of office. Just like Oliver North said, even after the Republican party shot down all attempts at economic reform in 2011 and then ran a completely bullshit presidential campaign, almost half the nation still voted for these people. Why? Why? Why?Why? Why?.....(ad infinitum)

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
Obama shouldn't have to compromise a damn thing. The plans he and his administration have been putting on the table would undoubtedly benefit everyone across the board, hell, even Warren Buffett came up with a reasonable plan, but the Republicans are being unreasonable and are staunchly supporting 2% of the population, at the detriment of the rest. They are the ones who need to fold, as they are clearly in the wrong here, and Obama shouldn't have to adjust his plan so that the livelihood of middle-class workers can be sacrificed, even a little, so a wealthy CEO can make even more money than they need. It's an utterly senseless sacrifice and the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for demanding it.

Do you have any examples? Both of the Obama stuff and GOP stuff you refer to in this section.

For example, the original "Obamacare" wasn't enough, if I remember correctly. It wasn't a single payer or UHC system. I have a hard time recalling anything "perfect" that Obama has done or proposed. It is hardly GOP vs. Democrat that you make it seem. At times, it is difficult to differentiate the two parties, especially if you are a foreigner from another nation: they both seem like a huge mess with neither party being very much different than the other.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
Dividers? Why should he and the majority of the nation have to compromise and sacrifice their basic needs so the top 2% can profit more than they already exorbitantly do. That's the disgusting thing about it. The 2% don't even need to worry about the tax hike affecting their overall wealth and living conditions, but Republicans still won't compromise, out of a mix of greed and spite.

Obama shouldn't have to compromise a damn thing. The plans he and his administration have been putting on the table would undoubtedly benefit everyone across the board, hell, even Warren Buffett came up with a reasonable plan, but the Republicans are being unreasonable and are staunchly supporting 2% of the population, at the detriment of the rest. They are the ones who need to fold, as they are clearly in the wrong here, and Obama shouldn't have to adjust his plan so that the livelihood of middle-class workers can be sacrificed, even a little, so a wealthy CEO can make even more money than they need. It's an utterly senseless sacrifice and the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for demanding it.

I think this is the point where business-influencing-government has become more blatant than ever before, as now basic rights are being attacked purely for profit. Our economy is actually being held hostage, for the second time in 4 years, and for literally no logical reason (as billionaire CEOs do not need the smidgens more that they would pay in taxes).

I'm just honestly shocked that riots aren't breaking out to get these people out of office. Just like Oliver North said, even after the Republican party shot down all attempts at economic reform in 2011 and then ran a completely bullshit presidential campaign, almost half the nation still voted for these people. Why? Why? Why?Why? Why?.....(ad infinitum)

Because compromise is what makes government and our society in general work. You prove my point, there's no difference between either major party.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by dadudemon

At times, it is difficult to differentiate the two parties, especially if you are a foreigner from another nation: they both seem like a huge mess with neither party being very much different than the other.

This

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Because compromise is what makes government and our society in general work. You prove my point, there's no difference between either major party.

So you think average Americans should sacrifice their livelihood so that the wealthy can make more money than they need?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you think average Americans should sacrifice their livelihood so that the wealthy can make more money than they need?

This is why I said it is hard to differentiate Dems from Republicans: the Bailout.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/business&id=6430408

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.
Voting yes were 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans.

Voting no were 63 Democrats and 108 Republicans.

Hardly the "GOP supports the 2%" picture you were painting. It seems the opposite, right?

We both know that the GOP generally supports big business but that particular vote makes it seem opposite. This is why people like Archaeopteryx and myself claim it is difficult to say the parties are "different" because they are not all that different.

Also, here, several Dems lied about the bailout vote:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/democratic-bailout-baloney/

Those lying scumbags! mad

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you think average Americans should sacrifice their livelihood so that the wealthy can make more money than they need?

Please tell me what, other than lip service, that the Democrats are actually doing to help the poor and middle class. Give specific examples.

Lestov16

I know democrats phuck up, but not on the level Republicans are. Democrats are the guys who will steal 5 dollars from your wallet if they know you have 20. Republicans will steal 5 dollars from your wallet if they know it is the only money you have left. Sure democrats have supported big business, but they've never sided with big business against the basic welfare of the American people. They've never held the economy hostage for literally no good reason.

Mindship

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm just honestly shocked that riots aren't breaking out to get these people out of office. Just like Oliver North said, even after the Republican party shot down all attempts at economic reform in 2011 and then ran a completely bullshit presidential campaign, almost half the nation still voted for these people. Why? Why? Why?Why? Why?.....(ad infinitum) Most of the population is of average intelligence or below. wink

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Please tell me what, other than lip service, that the Democrats are actually doing to help the poor and middle class. Give specific examples.

Are you supporting the Republican stance? My stance here isn't supporting Democrats, it's lambasting Republicans. And also, pretty sure the fact that they aren't voting no basic disability rights bills, attacking unions, and holding our economy hostage gives them a lot more credibility than Republicans. Also, I'm pretty sure it was the Republicans who ran us into our current financial crisis that is affecting the poor and middle class and it was the Republicans who have been obstructing Obama's attempted economic reforms ever since his presidency began. And sure, his solutions aren't perfect, but they're the best ones we got.

Please tell me what are Republicans doing better than Democrats. Tell me how they are benefiting are country at all. That's the thing with D and R. Democrats have good and bad days. GOP has only bad days.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Mindship
Most of the population is of average intelligence or below. wink

The Republican party is not entirely w/o value. It's modern incarnation essentially expouses self-reliance over dependence on government. If nothing else, it certainly keeps another party from having all the power. It's problem, imho, is that it represents the Old World: one that resists change in an attempt to sustain the illusion of a Norman Rockwell planet where white people rule happily ever after, where heartless competition and unbridled greed are good. However, Earth has grown too small and too diverse for this mindset to continue.

I certainly don't think the Democrats have all the answers, and for the most part, a politician is a politician is a politician. But I am inclined to favor a party which, for example, had the courage to put a woman on the vice-presidential ticket a whole generation before the other did.

I entirely agree. I guess Republicans do serve as a balance of power, but couldn't they just be replaced by Libertarians? Libs essentially believe in the same things as GOP but aren't greedy spiteful businessmen. Republicans are definitely an outdated and obsolete relic of the 50's, and no longer serve a practical purpose in our government. Matter of fact, they are a detriment.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
Are you supporting the Republican stance? My stance here isn't supporting Democrats, it's lambasting Republicans. And also, pretty sure the fact that they aren't voting no basic disability rights bills, attacking unions, and holding our economy hostage gives them a lot more credibility than Republicans. Also, I'm pretty sure it was the Republicans who ran us into our current financial crisis that is affecting the poor and middle class and it was the Republicans who have been obstructing Obama's attempted economic reforms ever since his presidency began. And sure, his solutions aren't perfect, but they're the best ones we got.

Please tell me what are Republicans doing better than Democrats. Tell me how they are benefiting are country at all. That's the thing with D and R. Democrats have good and bad days. GOP has only bad days.

Do you even read my posts?

Lestov16

You think Democrats should compromise just because that's the system an ideal government would take. Sadly, this is not an ideal government, and these are not ideal circumstances. There are situations in which compromise is not an option, and this is one of them. Americans shouldn't have to sacrifice their livelihoods to support the wealthy elite. Wouldn't matter if it were GOP or democrats supporting it. They'd be in the wrong and that's what I'm talking about here.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
I entirely agree. I guess Republicans do serve as a balance of power, but couldn't they just be replaced by Libertarians? Libs essentially believe in the same things as GOP but aren't greedy spiteful businessmen. Republicans are definitely an outdated and obsolete relic of the 50's, and no longer serve a practical purpose in our government. Matter of fact, they are a detriment.

By "50s" you meant "1850s" right? Right? RIIIIIGHT? laughing

But, yeah, it was founded in the 1850s by peeps that, generally, were anti-slavery. Those liberal Republicans! *shakes fists with extreme chagrin*

Lestov16

I know the original Democrats were KKK, and such, but that has nothing to do with current affairs. We're talking about the behavior of the republican part right now, and how much it defies common sense. I'm utterly shocked that these greedy retards govern us and can influence our daily lives.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
You think Democrats should compromise just because that's the system an ideal government would take. Sadly, this is not an ideal government, and these are not ideal circumstances. There are situations in which compromise is not an option, and this is one of them. Americans shouldn't have to sacrifice their livelihoods to support the wealthy elite. Wouldn't matter if it were GOP or democrats supporting it. They'd be in the wrong and that's what I'm talking about here.

I asked you for specific examples on the Democrats and you dodged the question. Right now a compromise, especially on the "fiscal cliff" is needed in Washington. I do not see how the Democrats are helping anyones livelihood.....other than the upper percentile. Both parties are parties of the rich....you obviously havn't been paying attention.

Lestov16

So you are saying both parties are stalemating the process?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I asked you for specific examples on the Democrats and you dodged the question. Right now a compromise, especially on the "fiscal cliff" is needed in Washington. I do not see how the Democrats are helping anyones livelihood.....other than the upper percentile. Both parties are parties of the rich....you obviously havn't been paying attention.

I don't see how it can be avoided: the rich are the ones that fund the elections. Seems obvious that the eventual outcome is a bunch of connected, rich people getting elected to public office.

Maybe if we severely limit:

1. Lobbying and the way it can be done.
2. The amount that can be spent on an election (different levels of spending for different public offices from local town hall committee to PotUS).
3. Limit house and senate terms.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see how it can be avoided: the rich are the ones that fund the elections. Seems obvious that the eventual outcome is a bunch of connected, rich people getting elected to public office.

Pretty much agree with this

I think all of those are needed, especially theamount spent on elections.

1 Lobbying by for profit entities should be severely limited though I wouldn't change it for non profits.
2 Limit the time legal campaigning can be done to 3 months before the election and set a fixed amount of money a candidate can spend.
3 One term for the President, two terms for Senate, and four terms for the House

And most importantly, it needs to be easier for other political parties to involved in the process, that's the only real way we'll truely get change.

red g jacks

so on the one hand compromise is what makes governments work, on the other hand when there is compromise the parties are accused of being one in the same.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are saying both parties are stalemating the process?

Excuse me while I go bang my head on the wall.

red g jacks

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I asked you for specific examples on the Democrats and you dodged the question. Right now a compromise, especially on the "fiscal cliff" is needed in Washington. I do not see how the Democrats are helping anyones livelihood.....other than the upper percentile. Both parties are parties of the rich....you obviously havn't been paying attention. the two sides clearly have different priorities in regard to how to tackle the debt. the democrats are mostly concerned over protecting "entitlements" while the republicans are against any hike in tax rates for the rich. you can argue about which stance would help the middle class more. that doesn't change the fact that they're two different stances, hence why the compromise is hard to come by in the first place.

how does this fit into the "there's no difference between the two parties" hypotheses?

Digi

Originally posted by Dolos
Obama will go down as the Einstein of politics. The one who tried to unite the Republicans and the Democrats, giving the US something it's never had before, cooperation. A new theory that when tested proves successful in running things.

No.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Dividers? Why should he and the majority of the nation have to compromise and sacrifice their basic needs so the top 2% can profit more than they already exorbitantly do. That's the disgusting thing about it. The 2% don't even need to worry about the tax hike affecting their overall wealth and living conditions, but Republicans still won't compromise, out of a mix of greed and spite.

Obama shouldn't have to compromise a damn thing. The plans he and his administration have been putting on the table would undoubtedly benefit everyone across the board, hell, even Warren Buffett came up with a reasonable plan, but the Republicans are being unreasonable and are staunchly supporting 2% of the population, at the detriment of the rest. They are the ones who need to fold, as they are clearly in the wrong here, and Obama shouldn't have to adjust his plan so that the livelihood of middle-class workers can be sacrificed, even a little, so a wealthy CEO can make even more money than they need. It's an utterly senseless sacrifice and the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for demanding it.

I think this is the point where business-influencing-government has become more blatant than ever before, as now basic rights are being attacked purely for profit. Our economy is actually being held hostage, for the second time in 4 years, and for literally no logical reason (as billionaire CEOs do not need the smidgens more that they would pay in taxes).

I'm just honestly shocked that riots aren't breaking out to get these people out of office. Just like Oliver North said, even after the Republican party shot down all attempts at economic reform in 2011 and then ran a completely bullshit presidential campaign, almost half the nation still voted for these people. Why? Why? Why?Why? Why?.....(ad infinitum)

Because your ideas are not the only ones, and to a certain extent you're repeating Democratic propoganda talking points here, not working with data or actual policies.

Lestov16

Having people sacrifice their livelihood so billionaires can profit is an objectively horrible idea, no matter who is saying it

dadudemon

Originally posted by red g jacks
the two sides clearly have different priorities in regard to how to tackle the debt. the democrats are mostly concerned over protecting "entitlements" while the republicans are against any hike in tax rates for the rich. you can argue about which stance would help the middle class more. that doesn't change the fact that they're two different stances, hence why the compromise is hard to come by in the first place.

how does this fit into the "there's no difference between the two parties" hypotheses?

Both Obama and Romney said that they would not raise taxes on the middle class and neither of them ruled out raising taxes on the rich, in one form or another. This was while both of them accused the other of trickle down economics.

Hardly a difference, at all.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
Having people sacrifice their livelihood so billionaires can profit is an objectively horrible idea, no matter who is saying it

You are a broken record. For the third time I'm going to ask you for specific examples

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
Having people sacrifice their livelihood so billionaires can profit is an objectively horrible idea, no matter who is saying it

How am I sacrificing my livelihood so billionaires can profit? From my financial perspective, 1) I am getting paid by billionaires and 2)their tax money goes to me and my family.

1) I work for a fortune 50 company whose home is in the US, 2) Currently, I get paid to live in the US, each year, when I do my taxes. Not only do I get all the money I paid into the federal government (I claim "4" on my taxes), they pay me money on top of that due to the credits for which I am eligible.

So the opposite is true for what you are saying. So where do we go from here?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You are a broken record. For the third time I'm going to ask you for specific examples

I provided a specific example that shows he is wrong, at least in my case.

red g jacks

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both Obama and Romney said that they would not raise taxes on the middle class and neither of them ruled out raising taxes on the rich, in one form or another. This was while both of them accused the other of trickle down economics.

Hardly a difference, at all. well that's a bit misleading. obama campaigned on specifically raising the tax rate on the upper class while romney said he'd cut rates across the board by 20% and offset the loss by "closing loopholes." so yea, i do think that there is a difference between those two stances.

in any case, i'm less interested in campaign promises and more interested in the demands both sides are making right now during the 'negotiations.' i can't see why both sides would find it so hard to cut a deal that they both must want to make if their positions are so identical.

i mean, they do have a lot of things in common, but i think this is an example of where they don't agree. healthcare would be another example.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You are a broken record. For the third time I'm going to ask you for specific examples

You mean besides the fact that Republicans have put us into our current financial crisis because they refuse to raise the debt ceiling because Obama wants to tax the rich (not even on a level that would really effect their livelihood) rather than butcher much-needed Social Security and Medicaid? Or do you mean last year, when they nearly put our economy into default, Or do you mean how Michigan Republicans are trying to surpress unions so they don't have a say in elections? Or do you mean how they obstructed numerous potential economic reforms:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbl0b8RR1S1r28jzgo1_500.jpg Not because of any logical reason, but purely to
A: Spite Obama
B: Blame him for the bad/worsened economy when no change occurs (because Republicans are stopping economic reforms)
C: Get utter scumbag Mitt Romney elected on a campaign of complete bullshit that they honestly thought the US population would be stupid enough to believe (but then again Romney did get voted for, so sad

)

I'm going to ask you: Why is your only tactic of defending Republican's utter disgusting, unethical, and outright retarded actions basically by saying "Democrats have done bad things too". And why are you defending such reprehensible people in the first place?

Lestov16

Originally posted by dadudemon
How am I sacrificing my livelihood so billionaires can profit? From my financial perspective, 1) I am getting paid by billionaires and 2)their tax money goes to me and my family.

I'm so glad that you, from your great financial perspective, represent the vast majority of Americans whose lives these cuts will affect, including the disabled, elderly, and others who are in need of assistance to live. I'm so glad you can callously say "Phuck them! As long as I'm good!" I'm glad to see that is the mindset of the Republican smile

Digi

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm so glad that you, from your great financial perspective, represent the vast majority of Americans whose lives these cuts will affect, including the disabled, elderly, and others who are in need of assistance to live. I'm so glad you can callously say "Phuck them! As long as I'm good!" I'm glad to see that is the mindset of the Republican smile

That isn't his mindset. You're embellishing his position and putting words in his mouth to villify him. It borders on trolling.

Think about this: why would the Republican party essentially torpedo its long-term chances at being elected, solely to empower 1-2% of the population? It's not a viable long-term model, even if a certain percentage of the population will always vote for them. Disagree with their policies if you want - and you do - but the less cut-and-dry truth is that both parties do have a general hope of creating well-being for Americans. They just go about it in different ways. All you're doing is repeating Dem. rhetoric.

Also relevant, the middle class would likely be ok under either party. Market forces largely out of the hands of the President have a far greater bearing on economic struggles than presidential talking points.

Relevant point: I'm not a Republican.

dadudemon

Originally posted by red g jacks
well that's a bit misleading. obama campaigned on specifically raising the tax rate on the upper class while romney said he'd cut rates across the board by 20% and offset the loss by "closing loopholes." so yea, i do think that there is a difference between those two stances.

It is minor because it amounts to, "We won't raise taxes on the middle class but we will raise taxes on the rich".

Both of their messages were contemporarily Democratic.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm so glad that you, from your great financial perspective, represent the vast majority of Americans whose lives these cuts will affect, including the disabled, elderly, and others who are in need of assistance to live. I'm so glad you can callously say "Phuck them! As long as I'm good!" I'm glad to see that is the mindset of the Republican smile

My point was, I'm not sacrificing my livelihood so billionaires can prosper. I don't know what all that other stuff is about.

Those "poorer" than I am can get even more cuts and tax breaks than I currently do. Basically, I was pointing out that the picture you were painting just is not true for most of the middle class. No one I know is having to pay tons of taxes each year except for my well-off, unmarried, not-going-to-college, brother.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Digi
That isn't his mindset. You're embellishing his position and putting words in his mouth to villify him. It borders on trolling.

He basically said he shouldn't criticize the GOP for their clearly unethical practices simply because he won't really be affected.

Originally posted by Digi
Think about this: why would the Republican party essentially torpedo its long-term chances at being elected, solely to empower 1-2% of the population?

They have no long-term chances at being elected. The only possible way the public would elect a republican is if that republican was very moderate, and given that the GOP hate moderates, and all the shit they've pulled over roughly the last decade (Bush era, Tea Party, Debt crisis, Fundie anti-rights bills, attacking unions, etc.), I'm not seeing the GOP being re-reelected by many any time soon, unless our country really is that retarded.

Due to the fact that they see that their era of bullshit is coming to a close, they've spitefully decided to go out guns blazing and destroy as much of the US economy as they can before they're out. You don't think they're willing to torpedo their credibility to protect their precious 2% laughing

They nearly put us into default. They put our economy and the economy of several other nations at serious risk for their 2%. They don't care about the majority of Americans or serving them. They only care about the ones with money, like the Koch Brothers. To the GOP, the government is a business you can profit from, rather than an institution which protects the livelihood of it's citizens

Originally posted by Digi
It's not a viable long-term model

laughing

You think GOP runs on logic? After the bullshit storm of the last 4 years, from the Tea Party to Romney, you think Republicans are working off a viable model?

Originally posted by Digi
both parties do have a general hope of creating well-being for Americans. They just go about it in different ways.

And the Republican way involves attacking basic rights and unions to benefit their billionaire financial backers, and holding our economy hostage (for the second time, the first nearly causing us to go into default) not for any logical reason but purely to spite Obama. Once again, look at the economic reform they obstructed:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbl0b8RR1S1r28jzgo1_500.jpg

And let's not forget about the disability rights bill they just attempted to suppress. Doesn't look like they were looking to create any "well-being". Sorry if I don't take your word for it.

Originally posted by Digi
All you're doing is repeating Dem. rhetoric.

I don't care about democrats. I care about the fact that the GOP are acting against the majority of the citizens it is sworn to serve. Like I said, democrats aren't attacking unions and rights because the Koch brothers told them to.

Originally posted by Digi
Also relevant, the middle class would likely be ok under either party.

I'm sure we would have been just fine under Mitt Romney, or his runner up, the oh-so-ok Rick Santorum laughing

(let's not even talk about Ron Paul because GOP clearly didn't support him)

Mairuzu

If americans were smart, understood basic economics and werent a bunch of children trying to suck the teet of the nanny state, they wouldnt want the democrats or republicans anymore. They're dinosaurs.

Robtard

Originally posted by Mairuzu
If americans were smart, understood basic economics and werent a bunch of children trying to suck the teet of the nanny state, they wouldnt want the democrats or republicans anymore. They're dinosaurs.

Who would they want?

Digi

There's actually evidence to suggest that a two-party system creates less extremism than a multi-party system, and that it's easier to talk between parties when there's less.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Digi
There's actually evidence to suggest that a two-party system creates less extremism than a multi-party system, and that it's easier to talk between parties when there's less.

and then one looks at most parliamentary systems around the world and their relative lack of ineffectiveness compared to the American system

Tzeentch._

Originally posted by Digi
Think about this: why would the Republican party essentially torpedo its long-term chances at being elected, solely to empower 1-2% of the population? That's what they're doing, though. So I guess the answer would be "because dumb"?

Lestov16

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
That's what they're doing, though

thumb up

In a pure move of spite, because they see that people much rather support the party that doesn't unnecessarily violate their rights for the welfare of billionaire CEOs rather than the majority of the people, the GOP are clearly and intentionally trying to tank our economy to the ground so Obama will have a stained legacy

To DDM, Digi, and all the other GOP supporters on here, why are you standing up for them? It's very blatant that our economy is in the shitter mainly because of them. They ravaged our economy and then intentionally obstructed all attempts at reform for no logical reason. I can understand wanting to be neutral, not wanting to be labeled a Republican or a Democrat, but even from a neutral standpoint, how can you accept the disgusting actions of the GOP?

red g jacks

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is minor because it amounts to, "We won't raise taxes on the middle class but we will raise taxes on the rich".

Both of their messages were contemporarily Democratic.

the rhetoric may have been similar, because obviously both sides have to appeal to the middle class during the election. they do agree on not taxing the middle class more. but i don't think the difference between raising the rate on the rich vs trying to cut taxes while closing loopholes is really minor.

by making that distinction, you effectively limit where the tax money can come from, and how much of it you can really squeeze out. rhetorically, this distinction might not make much of a difference to your average joe. but i think that romney had to take a stand against raising tax rates (because he is a republican) but also had to give the impression that he wasn't just trying to protect the rich (because he was running for president) and thus his plan makes perfect sense from that perspective.

and once again... when you look at the demands being made right now, while not in on the campaign trail, the two sides clearly don't see eye to eye on taxes nor spending on social programs.

Lestov16

One criticism that I do have about Obama is how he agreed with Romney that he disliked corporate tax hikes, despite the fact that corporations are flourishing better than ever.

Still, that doesn't excuse the Republican assault on the US economy and livelihood over the last few years that has brought us to the economic turmoil we presently face.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
To DDM, Digi, and all the other GOP supporters on here,

Cool story, bro.

Originally posted by Lestov16
One criticism that I do have about Obama is how he agreed with Romney that he disliked corporate tax hikes, despite the fact that corporations are flourishing better than ever.

Your despite "fact" is false:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/corporate-profits-fall-for-first-time-since-recession/

Originally posted by Lestov16
Still, that doesn't excuse the Republican assault on the US economy and livelihood over the last few years that has brought us to the economic turmoil we presently face.

Is this another "blame the Recession on Bush" comment? Be direct in your statements. smile

Lestov16

Greatest story ever told.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
Greatest story ever told.

Well, don't quit your day job because your fiction material is shit. I edited my post: check it out. smile

Lestov16

But in all seriousness, you guys seem to support the GOP, or at least defend them, simply so you can appear as "neutral" rather than a strict democrat. The thing is that the GOP are doing things that even a neutral individual should find reprehensible.

Robtard

Originally posted by Lestov16
But in all seriousness, you guys seem to support the GOP, or at least defend them

Defending something doesn't equate to support by default. If you said "Hitler hated and tortured animals", I'd point out that when in came to animals, Hitler was very pro animal rights/defense. Doesn't mean I agree with his stances on racial and societal group superiority.

Digi

Originally posted by Lestov16
But in all seriousness, you guys seem to support the GOP, or at least defend them, simply so you can appear as "neutral" rather than a strict democrat. The thing is that the GOP are doing things that even a neutral individual should find reprehensible.

It's not that we don't disagree with the GOP. I hate a lot of what they've done recently. It's that you're a caricature of their detractors, reiterating rhetoric instead of trying to understand why someone might back the Republicans or identify as one. You're polarizing and insulting.

Dolos

I'm bipartisan for life.

Villelater

The Republican party has to make the world think they are dead...for they are excused of murder they didn't commit...The Republican party has been trying to find a cure for the Raging members inside them...(dun da dun) Phint!

Lestov16

Originally posted by Digi
It's not that we don't disagree with the GOP. I hate a lot of what they've done recently.

Then why are you defending them?

Originally posted by Digi
It's that you're a caricature of their detractors, reiterating rhetoric

So you're defending them to spite me? confused

Rhetoric?

No. How about fact?
Are you saying the GOP
- aren't holding our economy hostage right now, refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless Obama unnecessarily cuts into federal programs, such as Social Security and Medicaid, rather than increase the taxes of the wealthy elite on a level that wouldn't even really affect them
-didn't hold our economy hostage last year, almost causing our economy to go into default and cause a major international crisis
-didn't halt various potentially progressive economic reforms purely to spite Obama
-didn't run a campaign with an utter scumbag businessman Mitt Romney, which was based entirely on lies (and let's not forget their attempts to block voting almost on Grandfather Clause levels)
-didn't just try to attack unions in Michigan so that they would have smaller influence in elections
-don't support such fun ideas as "self-deportation", anti-abortion, and anti-homosexuality
-don't try to get states to educate children that the universe was created by an invisible sky wizard

Because if that's what you're saying, I'd have to disagree smile

Originally posted by Digi
instead of trying to understand why someone might back the Republicans or identify as one.

Exactly, I'm trying to find out why someone would associate themself with a group who perform such reprehensible actions. Even you just said you don't support them wink

Originally posted by Digi
You're polarizing and insulting.

I'm insulting to the bastards who are destroying our country? Really? eek!

Lestov16

Originally posted by Robtard
Defending something doesn't equate to support by default. If you said "Hitler hated and tortured animals", I'd point out that when in came to animals, Hitler was very pro animal rights/defense. Doesn't mean I agree with his stances on racial and societal group superiority.

Yes but in the context of your example, I am talking directly about his genocide.

The things I am accusing the GOP of doing are not false at all. I'm not accusing them of stealing lollipops. I'm calling them out for putting us in the financial crisis we are in now for no good reason, which is exactly what they are doing/did. They destroyed our economy under the Bush era, halted all attempts at economic reform, almost destroyed our economy in 2011, ran an utter scumbag of a presidential-elect (and that was their best) on a campaign of nothing but lies, and now are once again holding our country hostage. Once again, remember, they ran a campaign of complete bullshit.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
Once again, remember, they ran a campaign of complete bullshit.

That is not what factcheck.org came up with. In fact, looks like the shit smells just as stinky from the dems side, too. smile

Robtard

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yes but in the context of your example, I am talking directly about his genocide.

The things I am accusing the GOP of doing are not false at all. I'm not accusing them of stealing lollipops. I'm calling them out for putting us in the financial crisis we are in now for no good reason, which is exactly what they are doing/did. They destroyed our economy under the Bush era, halted all attempts at economic reform, almost destroyed our economy in 2011, ran an utter scumbag of a presidential-elect (and that was their best) on a campaign of nothing but lies, and now are once again holding our country hostage. Once again, remember, they ran a campaign of complete bullshit.

And in the context they're replying with: "No, incorrect, Hitler didn't kill 6 billion Jews, he killed 6 million Jews."

Which is in no way defending Hitler.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Robtard
And in the context they're replying with: "No, incorrect, Hitler didn't kill 6 billion Jews, he killed 6 million Jews."

Which is in no way defending Hitler.

And in the context I'm not saying he killed 6 billion Jews, I'm saying he killed 11 million people, which he did. Just like I'm saying the GOP are holding us hostage, which they are. This isn't a complex situation where that has to be viewed from multiple angles and perspectives to reach a conclusion. The GOP are clearly acting against the welfare of the American majority and against economic and social reform.

Lestov16

Originally posted by dadudemon
That is not what factcheck.org came up with. In fact, looks like the shit smells just as stinky from the dems side, too. smile

The dems had a plan. Even if it wasn't a perfect plan, it was a reasonable one. GOP didn't even have that. They essentially said "keep letting the rich do what they do and we'll make no reforms, and the problem will just work itself out". The democrats never squeezed out a turd that big.

And again, why is your only defense of the GOP saying "the democrats did bad stuff too"?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
The dems had a plan. Even if it wasn't a perfect plan, it was a reasonable one. GOP didn't even have that. They essentially said "keep letting the rich do what they do and we'll make no reforms, and the problem will just work itself out". The democrats never squeezed out a turd that big.

And again, why is your only defense of the GOP saying "the democrats did bad stuff too"?

Are you old enough to vote?

Dolos

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you old enough to vote?

Are you scared?

BackFire

Republicans will likely bounce back to relevancy within the next decade, similarly to how Democrats bounced back after Regan with Clinton when many felt the party was dead. They will absolutely have to shift many of their ideas, though, especially those involving social issues, as they are becoming farther and farther from the values that the majority of the nation believes and are becoming increasingly impossible to defend through logical means. They're already trying to do this. They could even bounce back in four years depending on how Obama does in his final term.

Digi

Originally posted by Lestov16
Then why are you defending them?

I'm not. I'm trying to level out your approach so that you're not so polarizing and jaded. Arguments exist for Republican positions or against Democrats ones outside of hate-filled rhetoric and some infographic memes.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Exactly, I'm trying to find out why someone would associate themself with a group who perform such reprehensible actions. Even you just said you don't support them wink

Perhaps because they believe in the central tenets of capitalism, and subscribe to a philosophy of small government spending/involvement. Or they're devoutly Christian, and see a country founded and/or modeled on Christian principles as they best for public welfare. Or they don't see the need to redistribute wealth to such a degree as others, so long as basic needs are met for all.

Of course, the Republican party isn't perfect at those things, far from it in some cases. But, historically, that's what they've represented, and it has a credible backing in the country.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm insulting to the bastards who are destroying our country? Really? eek!

No. To posters on KMC. You've allowed yourself to engage in hyperbole to characterize posters as selfish or ignorant, without actually confronting them on a personal, rational level. Politicians are in the public spotlight; they can take it, and should be scrutinized. Individually, though, arguments can be handled with more tact, especially when you're not currently arguing against any of the political bogeymen you're railing against. Earlier, for one example (among others), you lumped together the entire thread and claimed we were only trying to seem moderate. As if "seeming" anything on the internet even matters.

If people who voted for Obama - I don't count myself among those either, but that's beside the point - are arguing with you, perhaps it's not your message but your method that needs work.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not. I'm trying to level out your approach so that you're not so polarizing and jaded.

How am I jaded? The GOP have been screwing over our economy for years. This is a blatant irrefutable fact. I haven't accused them of anything they haven't done. I'm calling them out for the crap that they have.

Originally posted by Digi
Arguments exist for Republican positions or against Democrats ones outside of hate-filled rhetoric and some infographic memes.

Then why haven't you posted any? Again, are you denying the negative effect the GOP has had on our government these past years? And if not, how do you justify it?

Originally posted by Digi
Perhaps because they believe in the central tenets of capitalism, and subscribe to a philosophy of small government spending/involvement. Or they're devoutly Christian, and see a country founded and/or modeled on Christian principles as they best for public welfare. Or they don't see the need to redistribute wealth to such a degree as others, so long as basic needs are met for all.

So I should excuse their reprehensible behavior because it's supposedly motivated by good intentions (even though it clearly isn't)?

Originally posted by Digi
Of course, the Republican party isn't perfect at those things, far from it in some cases. But, historically, that's what they've represented, and it has a credible backing in the country.

And that credibility is waining fast. Who cares what they were like 100 years ago. Democrats were KKK, for Pete's sake. We're talking about now. Republicans are outdated and obsolete. Like I said, a moderate Republican would be good, but the GOP seem to hate progressive politicians. Just look at how they treated Ron Paul. Paul probably isn't the best politician, and I probably would have voted for Obama over him, but at least he would have been a credible candidate. But no, the GOP actually insulted America's intelligence and tried to run lying turd Mitt Romney.

Originally posted by Digi
No. To posters on KMC. You've allowed yourself to engage in hyperbole to characterize posters as selfish or ignorant, without actually confronting them on a personal, rational level.

Um, no. I came on here calling out the GOP for the shit they've pulled over the last few years, and you guys essentially said that they don't deserve that criticism. Please forgive me for being shocked that you are defending such horrible people

Originally posted by Digi
Politicians are in the public spotlight; they can take it, and should be scrutinized.

But yet you seem upset when I scrutinize them

Originally posted by Digi
Individually, though, arguments can be handled with more tact,

Again, I get surprised when I'm told to be understanding to a group of people who seem to be against the majority of the American public

Originally posted by Digi
especially when you're not currently arguing against any of the political bogeymen you're railing against.

laughing

"bogeymen", again acting like this is some myth that the GOP have been ruining our economy, rather than what's clearly happening.

Originally posted by Digi
Earlier, for one example (among others), you lumped together the entire thread and claimed we were only trying to seem moderate.

Well you are defending Republicans, but at the same time, you are staunchly calling yourself not-a-Republican and not supportive of Republican ideals as they exist today, so again, please forgive me for assuming that you are trying to maintain neutrality. I just call it as I see it. You especially imply it, with posts such as these:

Originally posted by Digi
If people who voted for Obama - I don't count myself among those either, but that's beside the point

You sure about that? wink

Lestov16

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you old enough to vote?

Yes.

The real question to me should be though: "Are you a New Yorker (one of the states that will be hardest hit) whose loved ones rely on federal programs like Social Security and Medicaid, that are about to be unnecessarily cut so some billionaire can make more money than they need?" And my answer to that would also be Yes.

Lestov16

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp the simple concept that I have vitriolic hatred towards the GOP because they are in the process of holding our economy hostage, and this isn't some theory or myth, but events that are occurring as we speak.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Digi
polarizing

laughing

Newjak

Originally posted by Lestov16
I forgot also, they actually ran that turd Mitt Romney, who ran a campaign based entirely on lies and fear-mongering. I don't know what's worse: the fact that he actually had a majority in some states (even if you hate Obama, there is no possible way you could see Romney leading this country's path into a positive outcome) or the fact that Republicans thought we were stupid enough not to see through his bullshit facade.

And it's even more hilarious because Romney was the best they could come up with, and the runner-up, Rick Santorum, is now working with some conspiracy/scam website, Rick Perry releasing horrifically homophobic ads, and all the other cretins from the primaries.

My question is why is it this way? How did we allow our Congress turn into our worst enemy? Who is voting these people in? Why can't we produce better politicians? The Republican Party has actually dissolved into Tammany Hall, with Boehner serving as Tweed. I feel like the other posters here have pretty much exposed your hateful self, but I wanted to point out you're a fool if you think Romney was the Republicans best.

As sad as it is to say no real Republican candidates were going to run this year because of politics and playing the game of it.

The odds of beating an incumbent president are extremely hard to do historically, and once you've run once and lost any aspirations of Presidency are over.

So most of the legit A-tier Republican Candidates weren't going to run this year cause it wouldn't have been statistically in their best interests to do so.

Newjak

Originally posted by Lestov16
laughing

You call me polarizing? All I did was call the GOP out on the bullshit they've been doing over the past few years. You're the one who started talking about Democrats and promoting partisanship, as you seem to think that eveyrone who criticizes the GOP is a generic democrat, rather than someone who is disgusted with the blatantly-disgusting policies of the GOP. You seem certain that Anti-GOP=Democrat. You're the one trying to promote a war between Democrats and GOP, rather than promote government reform. If there's anyone polarizing here, it's you. He isn't saying that everyone who disagrees with the GOP are democrats he is saying that your claims of it are based on general democratic stereotypes for the GOP as well as general Democratic Propaganda.

The truth here is Digi isn't polarizing anyone here as most people in this thread agree with him in that you are not presenting any facts and just making broad claims to seemingly equate Republicans with hte Devil which isn't true.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Newjak
He isn't saying that everyone who disagrees with the GOP are democrats he is saying that your claims of it are based on general democratic stereotypes for the GOP as well as general Democratic Propaganda.

so you're saying the GOP have not done the things I claimed? The only reason anyone would have to criticize my criticism of the GOP is if I stated something wrong about them, and i didn't. I don't care what "democratic propaganda" says. I am making my criticism based off of what I have seen the GOP do over the past years

Originally posted by Newjak
you are not presenting any facts

Facts:

Bush was elected in basically through a scam and his administration abused the hell out of economy for profit, and when Obama came in to make reforms, they formed The Tea Party against him (which was full of crazies and based entirely on lies), blocked all economic reforms he tried to make, held our economy hostage once last year, nearly causing us to default, ran an absolute scumbag of a presidential elect in a campaign that was (once again) based entirely on lies, attempted to pass various bills that would suppress basic rights to women, homosexuals, and others, tried to teach our children to believe bullshit cosmology, and now they are holding our country hostage for a second time, unless Obama makes unnecessary cuts to needed public programs rather than tax the wealthiest 2% on a level they probably wouldn't notice

Originally posted by Newjak
and just making broad claims to seemingly equate Republicans with hte Devil which isn't true.

The fact that they are holding our economy hostage, refusing to raise the debt ceiling so Obama will have to unnecessarily cut into programs such as Social Security, which my disabled mom lives on, rather than raise the taxes of the wealthy elite on a smidgeon of a level they won't even notice, isn't true? Really?

Again, you are asking me to be understanding towards a political party who clearly do not care about the public it's supposed to serve, instead devoting themselves to billionaires like the Koch Bros. Sorry if I have some difficulty doing so.

Originally posted by Newjak
I feel like the other posters here have pretty much exposed your hateful self

Again, you're shocked that I hate a group who are threatening the livelihood of my loved ones and others for no reason? Really? You'd think hatred of the GOP and their despicable behavior was the entire point of this thread or something eek!

Digi

Originally posted by Lestov16
How am I jaded? The GOP have been screwing over our economy for years. This is a blatant irrefutable fact. I haven't accused them of anything they haven't done. I'm calling them out for the crap that they have.

Jaded in calling any Republican reprehensible, when there are many voters and some politician party members who do indeed have a reasonable approach to politics.

You seem to equate the extremes with everyone. They're the most vocal and, yes, have highjacked aspects of the Republican party. That doesn't mean Joe Republican doesn't have an informed opinion or legitimate gripes with Democrats.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So I should excuse their reprehensible behavior because it's supposedly motivated by good intentions (even though it clearly isn't)?

No, but you shouldn't paint with such a broad brush.

Originally posted by Lestov16
And that credibility is waining fast. Who cares what they were like 100 years ago. Democrats were KKK, for Pete's sake. We're talking about now. Republicans are outdated and obsolete. Like I said, a moderate Republican would be good, but the GOP seem to hate progressive politicians. Just look at how they treated Ron Paul. Paul probably isn't the best politician, and I probably would have voted for Obama over him, but at least he would have been a credible candidate. But no, the GOP actually insulted America's intelligence and tried to run lying turd Mitt Romney.

100? Try within our lifetime. Moderate Republicans exist, even in Washington. With the more extremist ones taking a blow this last election, we'll probably see a gradual push toward the middle from the GOP.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Um, no. I came on here calling out the GOP for the shit they've pulled over the last few years, and you guys essentially said that they don't deserve that criticism. Please forgive me for being shocked that you are defending such horrible people

I have not said this. Please forgive me for calling you out on ascribing arguments that I have not made.

Originally posted by Lestov16
But yet you seem upset when I scrutinize them

Your tone, not the message itself. Your approach is never going to convince anyone, it's just going to make them retreat further into their conservative bubble, convinced that liberals are angry and irrational.

Also, you're ascribing emotion to me as well. We're chatting on the internet. That's all. I can only speak for myself, but KMC hasn't made me upset in probably a half decade.

Originally posted by Lestov16
laughing

"bogeymen", again acting like this is some myth that the GOP have been ruining our economy, rather than what's clearly happening.

You misunderstand. Bogeymen referred to the fact that you're not speaking to any politicians in this thread. You're talking to about a dozen or so KMC posters. Cater your arguments as such.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well you are defending Republicans, but at the same time, you are staunchly calling yourself not-a-Republican and not supportive of Republican ideals as they exist today, so again, please forgive me for assuming that you are trying to maintain neutrality. I just call it as I see it. You especially imply it, with posts such as these:

You sure about that? wink

Since it seems to matter so much to you...

I'm very conservative on fiscal matters, bordering on libertarianism. While I don't believe recent Republican candidates accurately represent such ideals, in theory I'm more aligned with them on financial matters. I've never voted Republican, but have considered it in the past depending on the candidate. I did not seriously consider any GOP candidate in this last election. I'm intensely liberal on social issues, and as such am more aligned with Democrats there. I tend to vote on social issues over fiscal ones, simply due to the relative complexity of economic matters (the complexity of the market, etc.) over social ones. Gay marriage, for example, is a binary issue. Economic issues are not, which means even a "better" solution according to my ideals might not achieve success.

I've voted 3rd party in the last two elections. If I had to choose one of the main parties, I would have voted for Obama, despite how much I despise the idea of a big government. Ironically, I identify more with both Green and Libertarian parties than the "big 2" despite those being polar opposites. I generally look for a candidate that leans centrist on the issue(s) where I don't agree with them.

As ever, I'm not so much defending Republicans as I am disappointed in your approach to the political debate. With a thread title like "Are the Republican Party Even wanted anymore?" it's a wonder you can't step out of your own bubble to see how generalizing and polarizing that approach is.

Lestov16

My apologies. I suppose I may have been a bit extreme in my approach. Note I am criticizing Cromwell, not Christianity (I do think all religion is obsolete bullshit, but that's a discussion for another time)

Maybe it's not the entire GOP, but the GOP members who hold most of the power are phucking up and abusing it and it needs to stop. Now. Like I said, there either need to be reforms in the GOP (stop attacking moderates) or it needs to be replaced entirely with the Libertarian party. The GOP in it's current state is doing far more harm than good to our country and if we don't stop them, we will all collapse under their buffoonery

Again, I'm not attacking Republicanism: the ideology. I'm attacking the people who call themselves Republicans, such as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, and others, who use their power to utterly shit on the public they are supposed to serve

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yes.

I figured.

I picture you as the people this gent interviewed:

Skw-0jv9kts

Originally posted by Digi
I've voted 3rd party in the last two elections... Ironically, I identify more with both Green and Libertarian parties than the "big 2" despite those being polar opposites. I generally look for a candidate that leans centrist on the issue(s) where I don't agree with them.

Yes, this is how I am, as well.

I think taking a step back and looking for a provable better solution is the best way to approach politics. That is why I think many drugs should be legalized if we use "alcohol" as a meterstick. Also, we make more than enough money to provide for a single payer system: we spend enough per person, too. We should have the best Healthcare system in the world, but we don't. We also make more than enough money to have a much better "prison" system and education system.

In my ideal US, the US has a $500 billion budget for science/research and a $100 billion budget for defense spending.

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Robtard
Who would they want?

Edit: Someone who would provide real change instead of maintaining a status quo of pro corporate bailouts and premptive warfare.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Edit: Someone who would provide real change instead of maintaining a status quo of pro corporate bailouts and premptive warfare.

I agree, which is why I, like someone else here, tend to support Libertarians and Greens, even though they are the opposite on many issues. Both oppose an interventionist foreign policy unlike the "big 2" which obviously support playing world policeman.

Lestov16

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figured.

I picture you as the people this gent interviewed:

Skw-0jv9kts

Because, once again, anti-GOP=Democrat, right? A person with a neutral point of view can't recognize what the GOP does as harmful, In order to disagree with their clearly unethical actions, I must an Obama-thumping democrat? Again, I'm polarizing?

Again, you are criticize me like what I said was wrong, so again: Do you think GOP are right to demand unnecessary cuts to much-needed public assistance programs rather than raise the taxes of the top 2% on a level they wouldn't even care about? That sounds like a pretty scummy proposition to me, not as a person belonging to any political party, but just based on basic human decency, but apparently I'm wrong to think this is a scummy proposition. So please, explain to me why it isn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think taking a step back and looking for a provable better solution is the best way to approach politics. That is why I think many drugs should be legalized if we use "alcohol" as a meterstick. Also, we make more than enough money to provide for a single payer system: we spend enough per person, too. We should have the best Healthcare system in the world, but we don't. We also make more than enough money to have a much better "prison" system and education system.

In my ideal US, the US has a $500 billion budget for science/research and a $100 billion budget for defense spending.

That's pretty much everyone's view for an ideal America, but you sure as hell aren't going to achieve it with GOP members trying to halt all social and economic progress. Not saying an ideal America is ensured under Democrats, but at least with them, or another third party, it seems possible. It is not possible when Mitch McConnell blocks all economic reforms and John Boehner holds our country hostage, amongst all other things I mentioned earlier.

Like I said, it's not the entire GOP and it's not Republicanism: the ideology that I disagree with. It's the GOP members who lie and abuse their power that I disagree with. There just happens to be a lot of them within

And another thing, DDM, I am enjoying your apathy for people, such as my loved ones, who will actually be affected by these cuts, since based off your little financial statement earlier, you clearly will not be smile

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
Because, once again, anti-GOP=Democrat, right? A person with a neutral point of view can't recognize what the GOP does as harmful, In order to disagree with their clearly unethical actions, I must an Obama-thumping democrat? Again, I'm polarizing?

My bad, the pro-Obama and pro-democratic party stuff you've been posting means you are not a democratic supporter. Gotcha.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I agree, which is why I, like someone else here, tend to support Libertarians and Greens, even though they are the opposite on many issues. Both oppose an interventionist foreign policy unlike the "big 2" which obviously support playing world policeman.

IDK. I think the US should maintain an interventionalist foreign policy. Bush phucked it up and put a sour taste in everyone's mouth, but that is because he was clearly doing it for Halliburton's profit

I think if we limit ourselves to airstrikes and support, we'll be good. The world does need policing. Especially now, with Assad about to order sarin gas strikes. Sometimes people need help that one nation can't provide alone, and I applaud our incentive to help those unable to help themselves. It's not like the 50's where the CIA was performing coups. We are legit helping foreign citizens who clearly need aid. I think we owe that to the world, especially considering our country more than any other was founded on mass genocide.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
IDK. I think the US should maintain an interventionalist foreign policy. Bush phucked it up and put a sour taste in everyone's mouth, but that is because he was clearly doing it for Halliburton's profit

I think if we limit ourselves to airstrikes and support, we'll be good. The world does need policing. Especially now, with Assad about to order sarin gas strikes. Sometimes people need help that one nation can't provide alone, and I applaud our incentive to help those unable to help themselves. It's not like the 50's where the CIA was performing coups. We are legit helping foreign citizens who clearly need aid. I think we owe that to the world, especially considering our country more than any other was founded on mass genocide.

If people on the other side of the world want to kill each other that's not our business. Playing world policeman is bankrupting this country and that started LONG before Bush

Lestov16

Originally posted by dadudemon
My bad, the pro-Obama and pro-democratic party stuff you've been posting means you are not a democratic supporter. Gotcha.

I glad you see the error of your ways. I hate the GOP, and so do democrats. Enemy of my enemy....

And like I said, any political party would be better, as no other political party seems to have a raging hard-on for the top 2% like the GOP do. I don't think you seem to comprehend that the reason I'm not talking about democrats is that democrats haven't been halting all economic progress and holding our economy hostage for the last 4 years like the GOP clearly did

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
If people on the other side of the world want to kill each other that's not our business.

It is if you want a better society. Apathy to people across the world just leads to apathy here.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Playing world policeman is bankrupting this country

It's not interventionalism that's the problem. It's how it is done. We played World Policeman just fine in Iraq and toppled Saddam, but it was bush and his cronies who unnecessarily kept us there far longer than we should have been and bankrupted us that way. Had we pulled out once we got Saddam, that would have been fine, but as I said, Bush kept us there, not to be World Policeman but for profit. I do agree we shouldn't try to solve other country's problems at the detriment to our own, but in the case of Iraq, Bush wasn't trying to solve their problems as much as he was trying to profit. Main point is that Iraq isn't the best case of our "World policing" as that wasn't the motive for being there.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
and that started LONG before Bush

Of course there was Nam' and the CIA coups, but that was a different time when communism was perceived as an actual threat that had to be culled wherever it was

Newjak

Lestov16

You mean besides the fact that John Boehner refuses to raise the debt ceiling unless the White House gives into his unreasonable demands, just like he did a year ago, nearly putting us into default? How do you not know this? Do you watch the news, or do you live under a rock?

Digi

Originally posted by Lestov16
You mean besides the fact that John Boehner refuses to raise the debt ceiling unless the White House gives into his unreasonable demands, just like he did a year ago, nearly putting us into default? How do you not know this? Do you watch the news, or do you live under a rock?

This is what I'm talking about. You have an opportunity to inform someone without raising a fuss, and you're hurling insults at Newjak.

Many peoples' lives don't revolve around politics, nor do they follow it closely. Even those that do won't be cognizant of everything that goes on.

Btw, I'm not sure you're using polarizing correctly. Polarizing is something or someone that pushes others to extremes of an issue or topic. In being so hostile, you're never, ever going to convince a Republican of anything, and will likely push them further to the side of the politicians you're against. Very little, if anything, that anyone else is saying is polarizing in the way you are. And really, isn't that the point? To convince people. Otherwise, why make this thread, which amounts to nothing more than an angry youtube rant in text form?

Lestov16

Originally posted by Digi
This is what I'm talking about. You have an opportunity to inform someone without raising a fuss, and you're hurling insults at Newjak.

Because he's clearly trying to insult my intelligence and make me seem like I am unaware of the subject matter I am talking about.

Originally posted by Digi
Btw, I'm not sure you're using polarizing correctly. Polarizing is something or someone that pushes others to extremes of an issue or topic. In being so hostile, you're never, ever going to convince a Republican of anything, and will likely push them further to the side of the politicians you're against. Very little, if anything, that anyone else is saying is polarizing in the way you are. And really, isn't that the point? To convince people. Otherwise, why make this thread, which amounts to nothing more than an angry youtube rant in text form?

I apologize for my hostility, but how else am I supposed to act? Logic and reasoning clearly don't matter in the heads of men like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. They get what they desire (protection of the wealthiest 2%, which is detrimental to most Americans) through bullying and coercion, as they are doing at this moment with the debt ceiling. They can't be convinced to shake their reprehensible behavior, as if they could, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

That being stated, perhaps you are right. Maybe I should just make a youtube rant...

Oliver North

Lestov: serious question then, what about the fact half the nation still votes for the GOP?

Like, lets say I don't disagree with any of your statements and that you have completely described the GOP, nearly 50% of America voted for that. Simply because you don't like them or their opinions, clearly, in a democratic society, they are both wanted and necessary to the political system.

What, would you ban them? Would you say parties can't take the policy positions they do? You keep hammering home the idea they are the party of the 2%, that might be true, but they have the support of about 48% more of the total population than that.

Digi

Originally posted by Lestov16
Because he's clearly trying to insult my intelligence and make me seem like I am unaware of the subject matter I am talking about.

Well, I disagree, but if that's the case, be the bigger man. Antagonizing others will just push them away.

Originally posted by Lestov16
That being stated, perhaps you are right. Maybe I should just make a youtube rant...

If you do, please post it here.

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Lestov16
IDK. I think the US should maintain an interventionalist foreign policy.

Funded by what? More borrowed money? Never heard of the term blowback? This only increases tension toward us.

Originally posted by Lestov16

Bush phucked it up and put a sour taste in everyone's mouth, but that is because he was clearly doing it for Halliburton's profit

Not everyone. Obama has increased and has gone overboard with this foreign policy. Even going as far as assassinating American citizens abroad, deploying more drones and that whole double tap bullshit.

Originally posted by Lestov16

I think if we limit ourselves to airstrikes and support, we'll be good.

How about the many innocent deaths due to our drone warfare? These strikes aren't very accurate. Again, it creates more hostility.

Originally posted by Lestov16

The world does need policing.

We cannot afford that. It should be policed by its own people of that country. The problem with you and our government is that you think money grows on trees and we can just pump more and more money into policing the world.

Originally posted by Lestov16

Especially now, with Assad about to order sarin gas strikes.

I dont see why Assad would do the only thing that would make the US intervene. Theres videos of the rebels using chemical weapons. Are you just absorbing everything the TV tells you? Did we learn nothing from Libya?
Originally posted by Lestov16

Sometimes people need help that one nation can't provide alone, and I applaud our incentive to help those unable to help themselves. It's not like the 50's where the CIA was performing coups. We are legit helping foreign citizens who clearly need aid. I think we owe that to the world, especially considering our country more than any other was founded on mass genocide.

Volunteer.

Originally posted by Lestov16
It is if you want a better society. Apathy to people across the world just leads to apathy here. How about we focus on our own country becoming a better society before we think we can fund the policing of the world?

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Oliver North
Lestov: serious question then, what about the fact half the nation still votes for the GOP?

Half of the nation or do you mean half of the voting population?

Bardock42

He's right, only 125 million people even voted. Everyone knows the other 175 million would have voted Ron Paul.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Half of the nation or do you mean half of the voting population?

indeed, my mistake

I don't think it changes my point too much though

Lestov16

Originally posted by Oliver North
Lestov: serious question then, what about the fact half the nation still votes for the GOP?

Like, lets say I don't disagree with any of your statements and that you have completely described the GOP, nearly 50% of America voted for that. Simply because you don't like them or their opinions, clearly, in a democratic society, they are both wanted and necessary to the political system.

What, would you ban them? Would you say parties can't take the policy positions they do? You keep hammering home the idea they are the party of the 2%, that might be true, but they have the support of about 48% more of the total population than that.

Exactly. This is what I'm trying to get to. The GOP are clearly having a negative effect on American livelihood, yet almost half the country still votes for them and supports them. Look how man votes Romney got. He ran a campaign based entirely on lies and still got the majority in some states. It seems people like to vote GOP just to oppose Democrats, but that way of thinking has only resulted in our current crisis now, because the people voted in are scum. So you drove right to the heart of my question: Why do Americans vote for politicians they know will harm them?

Oliver North

because they agree with their positions?

like, outside of claiming either:

a) I know the internal content of people's minds

b) I know better what people want than they do themselves

you can't really claim otherwise

the reason the GOP is still relevant is because people still want them. You can disagree with their policy, but clearly a large portion of people do not.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Funded by what? More borrowed money? Never heard of the term blowback? This only increases tension toward us.

I'd rather the US gets a bad rap than allow another Rwandan Genocide to occur. You are right about the money though.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Not everyone. Obama has increased and has gone overboard with this foreign policy.

His foreign policy isn't the best, but it's a lot better than Bush's.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Even going as far as assassinating American citizens abroad,

Anwar al-Awlaki was a known terrorist and his teachings led to the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. I don't care what nationality he was, he needed to die. It's the same about me supposed to be feeling sympathy about Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting the shit tortured out of him. Sometimes, people get what they deserve.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
and that whole double tap bullshit.

I agree. It's hard to get information from anybody when they have a bullet in their dome.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
deploying more drones
How about the many innocent deaths due to our drone warfare?
These strikes aren't very accurate
Again, it creates more hostility.

The drone strike scenario is an unwinnable scenario no matter how you look at it. If we strike, we kill innocents and get them mad at us. If we don't strike, they run wild and use the opportunity to plot suicide bombings against us.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I dont see why Assad would do the only thing that would make the US intervene.

Exactly. We're the only deterrent stopping Assad from slaughtering his civilians more than he already has

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Did we learn nothing from Libya?

What do you mean? We should have just let Gaddafi run wild and continue his onslaught? Are you saying everyone in Libya, rather than a small terror group, are responsible for the consulate attacks? I hope you aren't saying that you would trade Chris Stevens' and the other 4's life for the lives all those who died under Gaddafi's rule.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Volunteer.

I would, but I got shit to do in the homeland

Originally posted by Mairuzu
How about we focus on our own country becoming a better society before we think we can fund the policing of the world?

It's just that when there is a situation too big for one country to handle, in which it seems the citizens are helpless, it's nice for somebody who has power to actually step in and help. "We help the helpless", as Doyle said.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Oliver North
because they agree with their positions?

But the GOP's positions are outright terrifying. Not to mention that massive amount of lies and bullshit the GOP say to get supporters. I don't need to talk about how much statistics are faked by Fox News, which is pretty much the top GOP outlet. So it's questionable whether the voters really agree with the GOP's position, because the GOP are always lying about what their position is.

Oliver North

so basically you are going with option b)?

Lestov16

So basically you're saying Republicans don't twist facts or outright lie, and don't use Fox news as an outlet to spread those lies, to get supporters?

Not saying all GOP supporters, but you know there are quite a few who have been completely deluded by Fox into believing the lies.

Oliver North

I've said nothing of the sort, and in fact suggested I have no interest in the horse and pony show that tries to lay the blame for decade long geopolitical trends on weekly job numbers or which of the two parties might be more at fault.

However, your suggestion is basically that, because you are smart, you are much better able to decide what a GOP supporter should think and why, and if they disagree it is because of brainwashing.

At that point, it really doesn't matter what you are saying about the GOP, you are being needlessly extreme and dismissive.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Oliver North
However, your suggestion is basically that, because you are smart, you are much better able to decide what a GOP supporter should think and why, and if they disagree it is because of brainwashing.

No, I just want to find out the mindset of someone who thinks that a group of liars who have ravaged our country for the past 4 years should be voted in.

Maybe there's a logical reason, but considering that the GOP have made campaigns based entirely on lies and do use Fox News to brainwash people with those lies, I can't help but think that they gain supporters based off lies. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again, nobody on this thread yet has defended the GOP stance smile

Originally posted by Oliver North
At that point, it really doesn't matter what you are saying about the GOP, you are being needlessly extreme and dismissive.

Your damn right I'm being extreme about the assholes who are attacking my loved one's livelihood for no good reason. And I'm not being dismissive because, as I stated, nobody here has even brought up a defense for the GOP's actions (because you can't defend such reprehensible behavior, which is sort of the point), so how could I dismiss it?

Oliver North

just as an outside observer who can't vote for either party, with the exception of the collusion between Fox and the Republican party, complaining about lies and poor policies is not something you should level exclusively at one party.

your second statement shows why your position is internally inconsistent, so I'll leave it at that.

Lestov16

Again, I know the Democrats aren't perfect, but they are not doing such blatant damage as the GOP are doing. Democrats, for all their poor policy choices, never nearly made us go into default, never blocked every potential economic reform just to spite the incumbent, and never held our economy hostage, as Boehner is doing now.

Like I said, you're comparing a Democrat, a person who would rob you of $5 if you had $20, with a Republican, who would rob you of your last $5 even if they had $20. Yes, democrats do despicable things, but the GOP are doing things that aren't just despicable, but outright harmful to the American people.

Oliver North

ugh, sp sure, again, it really doesn't matter, your position 2 posts ago sort of shows why it is futile to continue, and I'm fairly bored of it already...

You said: I'm not dismissing people, I want to hear their justification

then say: You can't justify it

so, you are dismissing people, you are just giving the pretense of being willing to listen before spouting off a rant about how bad the GOP is

Robtard

Originally posted by Robtard
Republicans = bad

Lestov16

Originally posted by Oliver North

You said: I'm not dismissing people, I want to hear their justification

then say: You can't justify it

Pretty much. I want to see why and how people can justify such unjustifiable actions. You guys don't seem willing to justify it, and as stated a Fox News Republican voter can't justify it because they're misinformed.

So yes, I want to see a clear, truthful justification of the GOP's actions, or for there to be admittance that there isn't one and the GOP are generally being assholes, and considering that no one has brought any justification yet points me towards the latter.

Oliver North

you are asking for something you don't believe exists...

you don't see how that is problematic?

Lestov16

I'm basically asking someone who believes in, say, legitimate rape (some more GOP goodness) why they do when so much evidence refutes it

Oliver North

ok, but the fact is you want them to justify it to you. since you have already said it is unjustifiable, this is impossible. basically, you have already declared any argument as inadequate, and have then suggested you know better for those who disagree with you.

like, you have staked the claim that reasonable people can't disagree with you, and your extremism is therefore obvious. accepting that these types of truths are entirely relative might suit your purposes.

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
It is if you want a better society. Apathy to people across the world just leads to apathy here.

It's not interventionalism that's the problem. It's how it is done. We played World Policeman just fine in Iraq and toppled Saddam, but it was bush and his cronies who unnecessarily kept us there far longer than we should have been and bankrupted us that way. Had we pulled out once we got Saddam, that would have been fine, but as I said, Bush kept us there, not to be World Policeman but for profit. I do agree we shouldn't try to solve other country's problems at the detriment to our own, but in the case of Iraq, Bush wasn't trying to solve their problems as much as he was trying to profit. Main point is that Iraq isn't the best case of our "World policing" as that wasn't the motive for being there.

Of course there was Nam' and the CIA coups, but that was a different time when communism was perceived as an actual threat that had to be culled wherever it was

Are you aware that the US military budget exceeds that of the rest of the world combined?

Oliver North

woah, I didn't realize you were Dark Cloud...

hello... smile

Archaeopteryx

Yeah, I took about a year off from KMC bit it's good to be back. And it doesn't seem I'm the only one who's KMC name has changed. beer

Lestov16

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, but the fact is you want them to justify it to you. since you have already said it is unjustifiable, this is impossible. basically, you have already declared any argument as inadequate,

Um, no. I want an argument to justify it. It's like I said, legitimate rape. There are people who believe it, and I want to know why. If evidence refutes your claims, and you still believe it anyway, I am generally curious as to know why. I haven't declared in argument inadequate because nobody has made an argument defending the GOP's position. The fact that no one can seem to justify the GOP's actions only makes them seem more unjustifiable.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and have then suggested you know better for those who disagree with you.

Do you disagree with me? and if so why? I know you are more intelligent than me, so if there is something beneficial the GOP is doing that I'm not seeing, please let me know.

Originally posted by Oliver North
like, you have staked the claim that reasonable people can't disagree with you,

No. I said supporting the GOP's actions seems unreasonable based on the things they've done and I want to know what logic is being used to support them.

Like I said, they are known liars, so forgive me for thinking that some of their supporters are heavily misinformed. Again, you're smarter than me, so if there is a reasonable argument for all the horrible shit the GOP has done over the past few years, please let me know.

Originally posted by Oliver North
accepting that these types of truths are entirely relative might suit your purposes.

Nothing relative about a group holding our economy hostage to benefit the top 2% at the detriment of all others. That's clearly a despicable action, no matter what your political views.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Are you aware that the US military budget exceeds that of the rest of the world combined?

Which is why we are in the best position to help

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
Which is why we are in the best position to help
Does our $16+ trillion national debt mean anything to you?

And I'm sure the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans, (Iraq again), etc, etc, etc really feel we have helped them. This country has been almost continuiously at war since 1941. I'm also willing to bet 09/11 would never have happened had the US pursued a non interventionist policy. Time for all this to stop . You blame the republicans for everything but historically it has been Democratic Presidents that have primarily taken us to war (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman,Kennedy/Johnson) and Clinton and Obozo have their share also. Not saying the Republicans are blameless, but you seem to have very little understanding of how or why the current state of American ecoinomics came about. Not to mention the toll in life because of all this shit.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
And I'm sure the people of Afghanistan,

I'm pretty sure they were quite happy to get rid of the Soviets

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Iraq,

GOP H.W. Bush thing

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Somalia

Unsure about that, considering how they kicked our asses out of there

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
the Balkans,
Because the Albanians would have been just fine under Milosevic and his "war-rape" regime

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
(Iraq again) Blame the GOP

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
This country has been almost continuously at war since 1941.

Mainly because of the Cold War.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I'm also willing to bet 09/11 would never have happened had the US pursued a non interventionist policy.

Again, the Cold war is what got us involved with him in the first place, so pretty sure intervention was non-avoidable. Also the 90's wars in the Middle East were manly cause by H.W Bush

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Time for all this to stop

I agree. Genocides like the one in Rwanda, Libya, and now potentially Syria should be stopped .

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You blame the republicans for everything

Yes they are the cause of our current financial crisis

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
it has been Democratic Presidents that have primarily taken us to war (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman,Kennedy/Johnson)

During the Cold War years against the Soviet communists who were just as belligerent

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
and Clinton

Pretty sure you're talking about Yugoslavia again right? Again, would you rather have let Milosevic carry on with his war rape?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
and Obozo have their share also.

He was elected during a time that we were at war, so it's pretty obvious he would be involved as well. Considering we've left Iraq and will be leaving Afghanistan by the end of next year, and considering that we've pretty much gotten everybody we set out for (Bin Laden, Hussein, etc.), I'm pretty sure it won't be going on for too much longer

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Not saying the Republicans are blameless,

They really aren't. All of our current overseas grief comes from them, since it was H.W who started the wars in the Middle East that caused 9/11 which caused H.W's retard son to go to war, even after the cause of the war was resolved (we caught Saddam), which gave radical Muslims a reason to start attacking us more frequently, which is why we are bogged down in a state of international violence right now. So yeah, GOP aren't blameless in this. At all.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
but you seem to have very little understanding of how or why the current state of American ecoinomics came about.

Let's see. We were fine under Clinton, then Bush scammed his way into office, phucked everything up with his Halliburton war (we caught Saddam, but then stayed?) amongst other things, and then when economic reforms were attempted to be made by the following administration, the spiteful GOP Congress shot it all down and held our economy hostage. Am I missing anything?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Not to mention the toll in life because of all this shit.

Do you know what creates a higher death toll? Genocide

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lestov16
I glad you see the error of your ways. I hate the GOP, and so do democrats. Enemy of my enemy....

And like I said, any political party would be better, as no other political party seems to have a raging hard-on for the top 2% like the GOP do. I don't think you seem to comprehend that the reason I'm not talking about democrats is that democrats haven't been halting all economic progress and holding our economy hostage for the last 4 years like the GOP clearly did

One day, I plan to run for political office. I am considering running the label "Republican". Vote for me if only because I can do math and will legalize MJ.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
How about the many innocent deaths due to our drone warfare? These strikes aren't very accurate. Again, it creates more hostility.

This reminds me: I saw a vid on the yucky side of the internet of a drone strike that killed a family. It was meant for a "house" across the street a ways and something or another got mixed up. They were in their front yard or something. Mother had a couple of little kids, etc. BAM...nothing but rubble. It was haunting and it disgusted me. That shit has to stop. I don't care if a "terrorist" goes free. Better they go free than "us" murder.

Newjak

Lestov16

You mean besides the fact that he would rather cut into programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Education, than expire the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%? Matter of fact, he wants to permananetly extend them for the wealthiest 2%

eek!

Newjak

Originally posted by Lestov16
You mean besides the fact that he would rather cut into programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Education, than expire the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%? Matter of fact, he wants to permananetly extend them for the wealthiest 2%

eek!

Holy shit! Thats's their endgame. They know it's a wrap in 2014 so they're trying to protect the 2% as much as they can before they're voted out and the people voted in make much needed reforms. The new people voted in will be unable to tax the 2% due to the permanent tax cut. Boehner, you piece of shit!!! So his unreasonable demands are that he is trying to fix the deficit in a way you don't agree with.

While I don't agree with his stands there is a difference between someone trying to hurt people and someone simply trying to do what they think is best. I can at least look at what he is trying to do.

Trying to vilify someone to get your point across isn't the best to go about defending your position.

That being said I don't know enough about the topic to know whether or not the person is in fact a bad guy but from your general tone I can at least come to conclusion that you tend to be biased with your opinions on the subject. Which to me means that most of what you're stating to me is basically opinions on what you believe the other side to be. Which is you believe them to be evil money grabbing tyrants only trying to help out the richest while all the democrats are trying to save the world with their reformed and enlightened way of thinking. Which is false not every republican is evil nor is every democrat right.

Mostly what I've gathered from this topic is that you basically shoe horn every single republican into one category of people even though Republicans represent a vast majority of different groups of people much like Democrats.

Oliver North

Newjak, you have to remember, people who are Republicans are too brainwashed to make up their minds about the issues. Only people who agree with Lestov are reasonable enough to have positions.

Lestov16

Originally posted by Newjak
So his unreasonable demands are that he is trying to fix the deficit in a way you don't agree with.

While I don't agree with his stands there is a difference between someone trying to hurt people and someone simply trying to do what they think is best.

If holding our economy hostage and nearly causing us to default is what you think is someone trying to do what's best, then I'd have to disagree. Even if they were doing it for benevolent reasons, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. many horrible dictators in history, from Cromwell to Hitler to Pol Pot, have used that "trying to do what's best" bullshit to commit horrible atrocities, and the GOP are doing so as well (if your assumption that they actually care is correct)

Originally posted by Newjak
I can at least look at what he is trying to do.

For the wealthiest 2%. He's trying to permanently extend their tax cuts so they will be immune from actually contributing to economic reform in this country. Also, how is blocking several progressive bills purely out of spite for the incumbent "trying to do" anything?

Originally posted by Newjak
Which is you believe them to be evil money grabbing tyrants only trying to help out the richest

Not all, but the ones who are have power and are using it protect the richest at the expense of all others

Originally posted by Newjak
while all the democrats are trying to save the world with their reformed and enlightened way of thinking.

Never said that.

Originally posted by Newjak
Which is false not every republican is evil nor is every democrat right.Mostly what I've gathered from this topic is that you basically shoe horn every single republican into one category of people even though Republicans represent a vast majority of different groups of people much like Democrats.

I think you misunderstand me. As I said, it's not every Republican, but it is purely Republicans. Basically it's like how not every Muslim is a terrorist but most terrorists happen to be Muslim. Not every Republican is a greedy businessman, but the "terrorists" (possibly literally) of our economy are all Republicans. I'm demonizing Al Qaeda, not Islam.

Newjak

Originally posted by Lestov16
If holding our economy hostage and nearly causing us to default is what you think is someone trying to do what's best, then I'd have to disagree. Even if they were doing it for benevolent reasons, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. many horrible dictators in history, from Cromwell to Hitler to Pol Pot, have used that "trying to do what's best" bullshit to commit horrible atrocities, and the GOP are doing so as well (if your assumption that they actually care is correct)

For the wealthiest 2%. He's trying to permanently extend their tax cuts so they will be immune from actually contributing to economic reform in this country. Also, how is blocking several progressive bills purely out of spite for the incumbent "trying to do" anything?

Not all, but the ones who are have power and are using it protect the richest at the expense of all others

Never said that.

I think you misunderstand me. As I said, it's not every Republican, but it is purely Republicans. Basically it's like how not every Muslim is a terrorist but most terrorists happen to be Muslim. Not every Republican is a greedy businessman, but the "terrorists" (possibly literally) of our economy are all Republicans There are plenty of greedy people who are democratic as well. There are plenty of people who are democrats that who put their own selfish agendas above other people. Trust me Republicans don't have that market cornered.

Lestov16

They don't have it cornered, but they undisputedly have far more sales, so to speak

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Bardock42
He's right, only 125 million people even voted. Everyone knows the other 175 million would have voted Ron Paul.

Nah, we derp

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'd rather the US gets a bad rap than allow another Rwandan Genocide to occur. You are right about the money though.

Sounds like an appeal to emotion. Genocides happen daily. Its just spread out. Depends where you draw the line I guess.

Originally posted by Lestov16

His foreign policy isn't the best, but it's a lot better than Bush's.

Its the same if not worse. He's already sending troops back to Iraq.

Originally posted by Lestov16

Anwar al-Awlaki was a known terrorist and his teachings led to the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. I don't care what nationality he was, he needed to die. It's the same about me supposed to be feeling sympathy about Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting the shit tortured out of him. Sometimes, people get what they deserve.

Anwar al-awlaki got killed for speech crimes. He didnt commit these acts at all and should have had a trial. He's had dinners with the CIA apparently, not sure what was discussed. We dont really know what goes down, only what we're told. It amazes me how a guy who can give this speech (ill post below) can suddenly change his idea. Theres plenty of other lectures he has on youtube.

j2Ofg2BacIM

But regardless if you think hes guilty or should be killed by us illegally,(even the mi6 passed on that) what about his 16 year old son who got droned, along with his cousin, at a family dinner? They havent even stated why this was needed. They tried getting away with claiming he was of military age.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1zg9m45.jpg

Ya right.

Originally posted by Lestov16

I agree. It's hard to get information from anybody when they have a bullet in their dome. Or a bomb in their face.

Originally posted by Lestov16

The drone strike scenario is an unwinnable scenario no matter how you look at it. If we strike, we kill innocents and get them mad at us. If we don't strike, they run wild and use the opportunity to plot suicide bombings against us.

The latter has to do with our intervention over there and occupation. Its not hard to understand that. We've been meddling in the middle east for almost an entire century.

Originally posted by Lestov16

Exactly. We're the only deterrent stopping Assad from slaughtering his civilians more than he already has

We're not going to stop the deaths of many. Getting invlonved only brings more death including our own and bankruptcy. Its all this fear mongering that gets us into this.

Originally posted by Lestov16

What do you mean? We should have just let Gaddafi run wild and continue his onslaught? Are you saying everyone in Libya, rather than a small terror group, are responsible for the consulate attacks? I hope you aren't saying that you would trade Chris Stevens' and the other 4's life for the lives all those who died under Gaddafi's rule.

Gaddafi got bombed for trying to turn to the gold dinar. Had nothing to do with the humanitarian bullshit. Al qaeda took over libya the moment he was killed by mob. We've been known to turn on allys for sketchy reasons.

Originally posted by Lestov16

I would, but I got shit to do in the homeland

So come up with ideas to enforce on others via their money as well. Always works.

Mairuzu

Originally posted by dadudemon

This reminds me: I saw a vid on the yucky side of the internet of a drone strike that killed a family. It was meant for a "house" across the street a ways and something or another got mixed up. They were in their front yard or something. Mother had a couple of little kids, etc. BAM...nothing but rubble. It was haunting and it disgusted me. That shit has to stop. I don't care if a "terrorist" goes free. Better they go free than "us" murder.

I go to the yucky side quite too often. Watched this video called tears of Gaza. ****ed up shit. I heard that they bombed a wedding in pakistan I believe... not sure... mainly because they bring weapons to weddings so you know... they thought.

The pilots are so disconnected to what they're doing. Its easy to press a button to attack a little human figure on a screen.

Oliver North

they call their attacks "bug splats" to reduce the harm done to drone pilots. They have been identified asw experiencing PTSD from their actions

Omega Vision

Not for nothing, but we can't totally absolve Al-Malaki's for bringing his son into a warzone. There are plenty of ways that that could have ended badly without an American drone strike even coming into the equation.

I think people get hung up on Al-Malaki because he had a US passport, while there are plenty of less morally-gray cases of drone strike collateral damage that don't get nearly as much attention.

Mairuzu

Since when were we at war with Yemen? Its not a warzone at all?

He also didnt bring his son. His son went looking for him. It was a week after Awlaki's death. He was at a family dinner ready to head home apparently. You're really trying to justify this? lol

Its al-awlaki (aulaqi). Malaki sounds awesome tho lol.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Oliver North
Newjak, you have to remember, people who are Republicans are too brainwashed to make up their minds about the issues. Only people who agree with Lestov are reasonable enough to have positions.

Ah, Libertarian syndrome.

Omega Vision

You're using an old fashioned definition of warzone. There doesn't need to be an official war for a place to be a warzone. I would call much of Mexico a warzone right now.

I'm not trying to justify it. What I am saying is that it's odd that you seem to care more about these people because they were Americans than you do for the dozens of innocent Afghans who've died just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My impression is that you care more about legality than morality.

Mairuzu

What would you call this "new fashion" definition? Sounds like a load of bullshit to justify it, and that is what you're doing.

Whats with jumping to conlusions by you assuming I care more about these people than those people? When have I ever expressed that for you to come to that conclusion? I've been openly against our bombing in all countries. That was a very stupid assumption. Very strawman as well.

Oliver North

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, Libertarian syndrome.

any "-ism" syndrome

Archaeopteryx

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm pretty sure they were quite happy to get rid of the Soviets

The Afghans want the Taliban back due to the instability and lawlessness of their country

And I suppose the Democrats in congress are blameless?

Your answer if an asteroid hits the earth

Again the Democrats in congress are blameless....yes sir!

Ok, let China, the emerging world power (who we are making so), stop them.

Like I said, not our problem

You assign too much credit/blame to the economy to the president.
The US was doing well econimically during the 90s primarily due to the technology boom. If you want to credit Bill then credit Bill Gates. Many of those jobs have now gone to China and iIndia. It was Clinton that signed NAFTA and GATT into law making it easier to ship jobs out of the country and above all, it was Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which dereglutated the financial sector and was the primary cause of the current financial crisis.

Well, at least we agree on something

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What would you call this "new fashion" definition? Sounds like a load of bullshit to justify it, and that is what you're doing.

I'm not justifying it. I'm saying that Al-Malaki wasn't an innocent man. It was still illegal, and possibly immoral, but I'll shed no tears over that man. His son is a stronger argument against drone strikes, but not the best. I think all in all opponents of drone strikes need to get off the Al-Malaki case and turn their attention to the blatantly brutal cases of collateral damage in Afghanistan.

It's not really a strawman if I say that it's my impression--it would be a strawman if I was trying to convince someone else that this is your position, not remark on my perceptions of your argument. Calm down, you sound angry.

Off-topic digression: you use very too much. Vary up your sentences. biscuits

Oliver North

parenthesis

I thought Fred Willard was a good candidate

Mairuzu

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not justifying it. I'm saying that Al-Malaki wasn't an innocent man. It was still illegal, and possibly immoral, but I'll shed no tears over that man. His son is a stronger argument against drone strikes, but not the best. I think all in all opponents of drone strikes need to get off the Al-Malaki case and turn their attention to the blatantly brutal cases of collateral damage in Afghanistan. You were justifying it. What did he commit? Speech crimes?

Cool, I believe they are all good reasons. This is more of a jab toward Obama and not simply an issue about drone strikes if you payed attention to what I was responding to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

It's not really a strawman if I say that it's my impression--it would be a strawman if I was trying to convince someone else that this is your position, not remark on my perceptions of your argument. Calm down, you sound angry.

There are others in here. Its an open forum and it was still a horrible assumption. VERY horrible. Very. Oh shit im using very too much again, only one very is the limit? ><

Such mediocre jabs at me lol. When it doubt, call the other person angry, and if they use one word more than once, call them out on it too!