RE: Does the Republican party need to change?

RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:20:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 and the left wasnt attacking bush after his first day in office???? Hell they were attacking him even before that. Bush reaching out to the other party putting democrats in his cabinet....and what did bush get for his trouble??? What was it that you found to be an attack in any of those links? Yes they were criticisms. Did you expect Bush's every move to be applauded? I certainly don't expect Obama's to be. In fact I have some criticisms of him myself. There's a difference between legitimate criticism and the ridiculous rants that are being posted here daily and the ridiculous rants that pass for conservative "news". Compare the reasoned criticisms in your links to anything you hear on Fox, or Rush, and tell me you don't see the difference.

rulemylife -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:23:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Look at what i just found. a few days prior to 9-11 the democrats were focused on attacking bush. They were actually airing TV commercials attacking the president. I wonder if there is a schedule I can get on the time and day of the airing of the commercials. Going by a typical ad buy, at its time in later August early September would make it likely the commercials were aired at the sametime the 9-11 attacks occurred. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/dnc.anti.bush.ads/index.html Democrat ads to attack Bush policies August 19, 2001 Posted: 8:09 AM EDT (1209 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic National Committee will soon air television ads in Washington and across the country attacking President Bush's economic and budget policies. "We believe this is a defining moment for President Bush," said DNC Chairman Terry McAullife. "The bills for Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies are coming due. We are determined to take every measure to ensure that the American people know what is at stake in the upcoming budget battle." Bob Shrum, a chief strategist for Gore 2000, developed the TV spots, which will run on Washington, D.C., cable stations and in "a few" cities around the country. And your point is??????????????

rulemylife -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:38:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity ..................... and those mean partisan Democrats should be forced to allow Republicans to write half of the legislation that passes into law. Then and only then would everything be fair and perfectly nonpartisan... Oh yeah, you mean so they can follow the good example set by the Republican Congresses. Do as I say, not as I do. Republicans are clamoring for fairness now but they shut out Democrats when they had control.

thishereboi -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:45:24 AM)
I think there is a lot of change needed in both parties, but I don't see it happening any time soon. I am curious as to why you would be listening to Rush. You obviously don't like the man, so why waste your time?

rulemylife -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 On February 2, 2005, Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. In this speech, which sparked the debate, it was Plan II of CSSS's report that Bush outlined as the starting point for changes in Social Security. He outlined, in general terms, a proposal based on partial privatization. The foot in the door, the "slippery slope". It would have been only the beginning to the dismantling of Social Security. When 401K's were introduced they were touted as a supplement to employee pensions. Now they are the replacement. How's your 401 doing, by the way?

domiguy -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:55:24 AM)
Both sides are awful...Unfortunately we have just experienced eight years of some "God Awful" shit. Above and beyond the call. It appalls me to think that there are those that will still defend Bush or those that will defend Clinton after he stared directly into a camera and lied to America. It is not a "capital" idea nor a capitalistic notion to bail out those individuals or entities that are failing. We let them fail. We let something/someone that is more efficient to take their place. One of my biggest complaints is to give these financial companies a "pass" in allowing them to sanitize these "shit wrapped mortgages" and then passing them off as an investment of substantial quality. Not only are they responsible for much of our troubles but they are also the ones accepting these handouts....Sickening!

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 10:56:02 AM)
Actually it does stick in some cases. Rewind 4 or 8 years and the types of posts (maybe not on this forum but on another I was on) were the same, just the political affiliation was different. Now to your OP. The REps do not need to change, that entire party needs to burn and go away. I almost feel the same about the Dems, but we will see what they can pull out in the next 4 years before I decide that. This is not based upon ideology, but the fulfillment of promises to do the things they say. The Contract with America was a big deal breaker on the Rep side, and now we will see how this stim "with no pork" stuff will go on the Dem side. quote: ORIGINAL: KaineD Don't play the "you lefties do it too" card because it doesn't stick.

Truthiness -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:01:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Like FDR did over a half century ago,we`re going to make a short term recession dramatically worse and drag it out over a decade. Fixed for accuracy. (Ironically, while the liberals hate on Bush for his treatment of human rights, FDR trampled on the rights of far more american citizens than Bush did, though that's a seperate issue).

MasterShake69 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:02:07 AM)
Republicans studied what democrats did to them for the past 8 years and are now mimicking them. Just showing how early the attacks were by the left against Bush. That’s why it’s occurring now against Obama. History repeats itself just the participant’s change in their roles they play. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Look at what i just found. a few days prior to 9-11 the democrats were focused on attacking bush. They were actually airing TV commercials attacking the president. I wonder if there is a schedule I can get on the time and day of the airing of the commercials. Going by a typical ad buy, at its time in later August early September would make it likely the commercials were aired at the sametime the 9-11 attacks occurred. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/dnc.anti.bush.ads/index.html Democrat ads to attack Bush policies August 19, 2001 Posted: 8:09 AM EDT (1209 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic National Committee will soon air television ads in Washington and across the country attacking President Bush's economic and budget policies. "We believe this is a defining moment for President Bush," said DNC Chairman Terry McAullife. "The bills for Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies are coming due. We are determined to take every measure to ensure that the American people know what is at stake in the upcoming budget battle." Bob Shrum, a chief strategist for Gore 2000, developed the TV spots, which will run on Washington, D.C., cable stations and in "a few" cities around the country. And your point is??????????????

Truthiness -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:06:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Now to your OP. The REps do not need to change, that entire party needs to burn and go away. I almost feel the same about the Dems, but we will see what they can pull out in the next 4 years before I decide that. This, though I think the Dems need to equally burn and go away. It would be nice to actually have a real party that understands what conservatism means in regards to keeping government in it's place and not being intrusive to the citizens for a change.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:07:39 AM)
Well I don’t plan on using my 401 K for at least another 30 years. So a momentary downturn is nothing for me to get scared about. If you have cash this is a time to buy. Stocks are the one thing people refuse to buy when its going down in price. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 On February 2, 2005, Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. In this speech, which sparked the debate, it was Plan II of CSSS's report that Bush outlined as the starting point for changes in Social Security. He outlined, in general terms, a proposal based on partial privatization. The foot in the door, the "slippery slope". It would have been only the beginning to the dismantling of Social Security. When 401K's were introduced they were touted as a supplement to employee pensions. Now they are the replacement. How's your 401 doing, by the way?

popeye1250 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:26:38 AM)
As an Independant voter I'd be happy to see both the Republican and Democrat parties self destruct. We can trace all of our problems to those two parties! What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting differant results?

Jmv0405 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:29:21 AM)
I wouldn't worry about the fairness doctrine. It's not coming back, and no one is stupid enough on either side to think it should. Bush did a bad job. Plain and simple. Not all Republicans agreed with him. Personally, I think we would have been in better shape if McCain had won the nomination eight years ago, but he didn't. All it will take for the Republicans to come back is one democrat in the white house to fail miserably. I hope that doesn't happen, but it could. As for Mr. Limbaugh. He's one of the biggest tools in modern society, but he has democratic rivals who are almost as big of tools (think Al Franken, who I am disgusted won a seat.) There are plenty of good, hard-working Republicans who I like a lot. Please don't assume Rush Limbaugh speaks for them.

Jmv0405 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:32:30 AM)
Also, anyone who thinks FDR prolonged the depression is any idiot. He's the major reason America didn't fall apart in the 1930s.

domiguy -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:39:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Republicans studied what democrats did to them for the past 8 years and are now mimicking them. Just showing how early the attacks were by the left against Bush. That’s why it’s occurring now against Obama. History repeats itself just the participant’s change in their roles they play. Wasn't their an episode of Star Trek that followed the same story line?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy It appalls me to think that there are those that will still defend Bush or those that will defend Clinton after he stared directly into a camera and lied to America. What appalls me is that, considering all the problems that have come up since the Clinton/Lewinski affair (pun intended) there are still people outraged with this matter as if it were of national importance and daily effect to all our lives. The married president got a blowjob from a fellow adult who wanted to give him that blowjob The president lied about getting said blowjob The dress has dried, the ship has sailed, get over it.

KaineD -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 11:59:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Republicans studied what democrats did to them for the past 8 years and are now mimicking them. Just showing how early the attacks were by the left against Bush. That’s why it’s occurring now against Obama. History repeats itself just the participant’s change in their roles they play. So Republicans are actually playing a childish tit-for-tat game?

Truthiness -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 12:06:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jmv0405 I wouldn't worry about the fairness doctrine. It's not coming back, and no one is stupid enough on either side to think it should. Noone thinks it should come back you say? "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the press that the Fairness Doctrine is needed not to remove any conservative voices, but to ensure that there are a few liberal shows on the air. quote: Also, anyone who thinks FDR prolonged the depression is any idiot. Also, anyone who thinks FDR didn't prolong the depression is an idiot. (Wow that was easy).

rulemylife -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 12:09:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Republicans studied what democrats did to them for the past 8 years and are now mimicking them. Just showing how early the attacks were by the left against Bush. That’s why it’s occurring now against Obama. Republicans didn't have to study it. They perfected it with the endless, relentless, attempts to discredit Clinton. Now I would have had no problem if they attacked him on his policies, but his policies were working so they were left to dig up EVERY SINGLE bit of his entire life history and most prominently his personal life. Sorry, but that type of sleazy politics is all on the Republican side. There was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Republicans to air all the details of his infidelity (the cigar, the blue dress). They did it to embarrass and humiliate him, without regard for the embarrassment and humiliation they were putting his wife and daughter through. That was the point I lost any respect I ever had for the Republican Party. Not to mention that several of his main Republican accusers were later involved in their own adultery scandals: Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton AccusedTwo leading Clinton critics, Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), have acknowledged extramarital affairs in the last two weeks after ... By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 17, 1998; Page A15 A bitter new sexual controversy erupted on Capitol Hill yesterday after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) acknowledged to a left-leaning magazine that he had a five-year affair with a married woman in the 1960s......................................................................................................................................................................................Two leading Clinton critics, Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), have acknowledged extramarital affairs in the last two weeks after being confronted by newspapers in their states. So let's talk some more about hypocrites.

Truthiness -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/20/2009 12:14:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Now I would have had no problem if they attacked him on his policies, but his policies were working so they were left to dig up EVERY SINGLE bit of his entire life history and most prominently his personal life. Sorry, but that type of sleazy politics is all on the Republican side. Yeah, that's as bad as making issue of a candidate's pregnant teenage daughter, or how much her outfit cost. Oh, wait, that was from the Democratic side wasn't it?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875