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

MasterShake69 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 12:17:34 AM)
really? nobody died under clinton? http://www.againstbombing.org/foreignviews.htm September 12, 1999 TORONTO STAR Canada must speak out on embargo WHY IS CANADA vacillating at the United Nations over lifting the genocidal economic sanctions on Iraq that are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially children? As an influential member of the Security Council, we should be taking a strong moral stand. Instead, Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy is reining in his reformist instincts to appease America and Britain, the only Western states still insisting on pursuing the perverse policy of getting at Saddam Hussein by inflicting untold miseries on innocent Iraqi civilians. For eight months now, the United States and Britain have been waging an undeclared war on Iraq, deploying 22,000 troops, 19 warships and 200 aircraft that have have fired 1,100 missiles and flown 10,000 combat sorties - two-thirds of the missions mounted by the entire NATO command in the war over Kosovo. The ostensible reason has been that Iraq has been violating the two no-fly zones set up after the Gulf War. But the misdemeanours - foolish boasts from Saddam about Iraqi sovereignty, the odd Iraqi radar locking on to an American aircraft, or an Iraqi plane puncturing the prohibited air space for seconds - are neither new nor serious enough to justify the longest U.S.-British bombing campaign since Word War II. The real reasons for the bombing blitz are the American frustration over the collapse of the discredited United Nations weapons inspection program, following revelations that the CIA had infiltrated it to spy on Iraq, and an American decision to topple Saddam, somehow, without ushering in democracy. quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Let's see... how did the bumper stickers put it? "When Bill lied, no one died." Still seems pretty on target to me. Bill Clinton lies (after being backing into a corner) about a sexual act between two consenting adults. Number of deaths = 0 George W. Bush lies in the state of the union about Iraq buying yellowcake plutonium from Niger. He pushes the country toward a pre-emptive war against a soverign state that had NOTHING to do with the 9-11 attacks. Current damage = 4,300+ American forces dead, 250,000+ Iraqi civilians dead. 6,000,000+ Iraqi citizens displaced from their homes. The country's infrastructure destroyed, the US now almost a full TRILLION dollars more in the hole. Bush uses the war as an excuse to rape our civil rights, to gut the US justice system, and to shovel the treasury of the US into Halliburton's coffers. Yeah. That blowjob really holds up against that kind of fucking evil.

corysub -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 12:32:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Hello Kaine D, What I noticed in watching both the Democratic and the Republican Conventions was the vast disparity in the audience. Granted since the Republican Convention happened during a hurricane the attendance was much lower. But most of the people there were older, white and veterans. Missing was a mix of ages, ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic levels in the speakers and in the audience. And several of the speeches were heavy on war rhetoric and lousy on the economy and other real life issues for Americans. The Democratic Convention by contrast had numerous young people, women, people of all backgrounds and the speeches were much more inclusive rather than exclusionary. The speakers were talking about issues that affect the lives of all Americans; economy, education, health care, and the environment. The one point of improvement that I would like to see is more military veterans honored at that convention. I don't think last years democrat party convention was particularly unique. The party has been pretty well diversified in appearance for the more than a few conventions I have seen in the past. I do think it looked as if there was an increase in younger people in the audience that probably reflected their excitment over the charisamtic Barrack Obama...and their greater participation in the process. With over 90% of people of color genetically engineered to be democrats I would think you will see too many more at the next Republican convention either...and that presents an opportunity for republicans. As far as honoring the military at a democrat party convention...well..some day we may see a room full of blacks at a republican convention...about the same probability.

shivermetimbers -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 1:14:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Hello Kaine D, What I noticed in watching both the Democratic and the Republican Conventions was the vast disparity in the audience. Granted since the Republican Convention happened during a hurricane the attendance was much lower. But most of the people there were older, white and veterans. Missing was a mix of ages, ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic levels in the speakers and in the audience. And several of the speeches were heavy on war rhetoric and lousy on the economy and other real life issues for Americans. The missing mix you were looking for were over at Ron Paul's gig. Not all Republicans are neo-cons.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 1:35:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 No! It`s fine just the way it is.....[:D] Rush/Palin in "2012"! NO!!!!!! Palin/ Plumber in 2012! We NEED a fake plumber for VP! really, man. get a grip. [8D][8D][8D]

VanessaChaland -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 2:10:28 AM)
Hate to put it like this,,, but I will. Does a chicken have lips, do bears defecate in the woods, can a tree be heard falling in an unoccupied forest, is Rush's obesity also making him a "FatHead" and not just a Fatass? The GOP does not need to "change" in a sense as it is high time for them to evolve (yes there is a difference). "Change" implies the need to act, speak, campaign in a certain way to garner more votes and regain power. Evolving would mean the lessening of connection with religious fundamentalists cranks, grasping that their version, and desire to return to the "good old days", is not ever, ever going to happen. See, the good old days, (according to their history) was not so good for blacks, Asians, Native Americans, women, gays and lesbians, people with an original thought, anyone with the ability to think for themselves and really anyone other than boring ass white men who held all power. Those days were not so good for anyone other than than little clan. I find it interesting, that over the Bush years, the GOP being the party of small government, little regulation, minding ones business, the only thing they desired to regulate (not banks, lenders, credit card rates, gov. contracts, crooks/friends that gave hefty donations etc) was other peoples sex lives and "porn". :) They deserved losing as poorly as they did, they deserve losing even more so in the future.

Raiikun -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 5:33:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout 5-They need to realize that the great Capitalism experiment has failed miserably and that sound fiscal policy requires BALANCE in regulation, NOT NO regulation. Cut most of the post out for length...because this is the only part I particularly disagreed with. Capitalism in America has been pretty regulated in one way or another to a fair degree...No regulation capitalism has never existed really. I've heard compelling arguments that it's government interference in capitalism is what put us in this mess to begin with. (One aspect I definately agree with...if we really had capitalism with no government interference, the government wouldn't be stepping in to support companies with poor business practices. Maybe if we'd allow them to fail and be replaced by businesses that would learn from their mistakes we wouldn't be in this mess now.)

TNstepsout -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:07:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout 5-They need to realize that the great Capitalism experiment has failed miserably and that sound fiscal policy requires BALANCE in regulation, NOT NO regulation. Cut most of the post out for length...because this is the only part I particularly disagreed with. Capitalism in America has been pretty regulated in one way or another to a fair degree...No regulation capitalism has never existed really. I've heard compelling arguments that it's government interference in capitalism is what put us in this mess to begin with. (One aspect I definately agree with...if we really had capitalism with no government interference, the government wouldn't be stepping in to support companies with poor business practices. Maybe if we'd allow them to fail and be replaced by businesses that would learn from their mistakes we wouldn't be in this mess now.) The recent debacle that has practically destroyed the economy of our nation, and many parts of the developed world, was caused by NO regulation in lending standards, NO regulation of CDO backed securities, and eliminating leverage restrictions so that banks could basically lend out the same dollar 20 or 30 times! Deregulating was one of Greenspan's great ideas for stimulating the economy and he even admitted that he was mistaken because he thought that "banks, operating without regulation, would act to protect their shareholders and institutions". He thought that economic pressures would act as a built in governance. Well it did, but in a huge, catastrophic way. That's why we have to have SOME regulation. So that the economic highs and lows are hills and valleys, NOT mountain peaks and canyons.

thornhappy -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:12:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Thanks for the helpful ideas..but no thank you. I don't think the republican party will benefit from ideas offered by liberals who are destroying the very fabric of what made America....Capitalism! You do remember the bailout of trading institutions, don't you? The ones that were socialistic, and done by GW Bush??

thornhappy -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:18:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Too funny. Never do the liberals post any facts...but they do love to post "Links" to liberal blogs that print the words they think they would have said, if only they had "said it first, and said it before anyone else, might have thought of saying it, did say it but no one heard,..well said"! Guess you never read conservative blogs, eh? Or the stuff on freerepublic.com?

DomKen -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout 5-They need to realize that the great Capitalism experiment has failed miserably and that sound fiscal policy requires BALANCE in regulation, NOT NO regulation. Cut most of the post out for length...because this is the only part I particularly disagreed with. Capitalism in America has been pretty regulated in one way or another to a fair degree...No regulation capitalism has never existed really. I've heard compelling arguments that it's government interference in capitalism is what put us in this mess to begin with. (One aspect I definately agree with...if we really had capitalism with no government interference, the government wouldn't be stepping in to support companies with poor business practices. Maybe if we'd allow them to fail and be replaced by businesses that would learn from their mistakes we wouldn't be in this mess now.) The US had a true laissez faire economic system in the late 19th and early 20th century. A period marked by periodic bank failures and panics as well as such wonderful things as company towns, trusts, Pinkerton men, child labor and various and sundry massacres of workers trying to negotiate for better working conditions. Regulations were put in place to control the excesses of capitalism that it became clear would not otherwise be controlled. We just proved Santayana right again.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:37:51 AM)
There mere fact that our country tolerates someone who possesses such hatred for any one side to the tune of $400 million is proof we are doomed.

MasterShake69 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:51:48 AM)
In the past 8 years how have the democrats evolved? What changed did they make? They must have done soemthing to regain congress ;) The republicans did make changes the past 8 years. They became more like democrats going away from small govt towards big government. That’s the change they need to reverse. Going by the reactions here of the left, you democrats are all scared of that occurring. quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland Hate to put it like this,,, but I will. Does a chicken have lips, do bears defecate in the woods, can a tree be heard falling in an unoccupied forest, is Rush's obesity also making him a "FatHead" and not just a Fatass? The GOP does not need to "change" in a sense as it is high time for them to evolve (yes there is a difference). "Change" implies the need to act, speak, campaign in a certain way to garner more votes and regain power. Evolving would mean the lessening of connection with religious fundamentalists cranks, grasping that their version, and desire to return to the "good old days", is not ever, ever going to happen. See, the good old days, (according to their history) was not so good for blacks, Asians, Native Americans, women, gays and lesbians, people with an original thought, anyone with the ability to think for themselves and really anyone other than boring ass white men who held all power. Those days were not so good for anyone other than than little clan. I find it interesting, that over the Bush years, the GOP being the party of small government, little regulation, minding ones business, the only thing they desired to regulate (not banks, lenders, credit card rates, gov. contracts, crooks/friends that gave hefty donations etc) was other peoples sex lives and "porn". :) They deserved losing as poorly as they did, they deserve losing even more so in the future.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 6:54:17 AM)
Vanessa, The only reason that Ashcroft didn't launch into his planned jihad against gays, porn and sexual freedom was that the Bush administration got distracted from that plan (demonization of alternate sexuality for political gain) because a better enemy reared its head. You don't remember Bush going on national TV, claiming that a federal anti-gay marriage ammendment was absolutely needed to maintain a strong America? It was his first step in turning gays and anyone who didn't fuck in the dark in the missionary position into the next GOP scapegoat... Meanwhile, solid republicans like Larry Craig were giving out blowjobs to annonymous men in public bathrooms. Does the republican party need to change? No. It needs to be made extinct.

Owner59 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 7:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shivermetimbers quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Hello Kaine D, What I noticed in watching both the Democratic and the Republican Conventions was the vast disparity in the audience. Granted since the Republican Convention happened during a hurricane the attendance was much lower. But most of the people there were older, white and veterans. Missing was a mix of ages, ethnic backgrounds and socio-economic levels in the speakers and in the audience. And several of the speeches were heavy on war rhetoric and lousy on the economy and other real life issues for Americans. The missing mix you were looking for were over at Ron Paul's gig. Not all Republicans are neo-cons. So true, friend. I had a hope for Dr. Paul during the GOP primary,and for the GOP as well. I was cool with Sen. McSame til he sold out to the people who he beat fair and square,the fundie/neo-con/lunatic fringe/current GOP leadership types. After that and Sarah...well you know what happened. Seems like the old school/principled/good citizen/small gov republicans are shut out again with the current republican leadership.The tirade between Rush`n`co.,the GOP and foxnoise is still operational and producing. IMO,the real republicans must wrestle the party back,as McCain did(but lost) away from these maleficent,un-principled,reckless and extreme bad faith players who run it now. The GOP needs a reformation if they want to have a future with any relevance. It`ll all be within the party, too.There`s not a single thing libs can say or do to influence them to change. Nor should there be.It`ll all happen on it`s own and between republicans.

corysub -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 7:08:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Thanks for the helpful ideas..but no thank you. I don't think the republican party will benefit from ideas offered by liberals who are destroying the very fabric of what made America....Capitalism! You do remember the bailout of trading institutions, don't you? The ones that were socialistic, and done by GW Bush?? Sorry, I don't remember the "bailout of trading institutions".. Do you mean AIG which is not 80% owned by you and me, or Bear Stearns which was closed up and merged into JPMorgan, or Lehman Brothers which was just closed and caused the resulting freezing up in credit aroundt the world? Or did you mean Citigroup...yep..still in business, thankfully, and seeling at low single digits along with Bank of America, the largest bank in the country. What were the trading institutions that were bailed out..if you mean that the stockholders were made whole? Otherwise, I think we have to redefine the meaning of "bailout"! http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LEHMQ.PK Lets. see...last trade about $0.03...one helluva bailout!

Owner59 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 7:21:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Vanessa, The only reason that Ashcroft didn't launch into his planned jihad against gays, porn and sexual freedom was that the Bush administration got distracted from that plan (demonization of alternate sexuality for political gain) because a better enemy reared its head. You don't remember Bush going on national TV, claiming that a federal anti-gay marriage ammendment was absolutely needed to maintain a strong America? It was his first step in turning gays and anyone who didn't fuck in the dark in the missionary position into the next GOP scapegoat... Meanwhile, solid republicans like Larry Craig were giving out blowjobs to annonymous men in public bathrooms. Does the republican party need to change? No. It needs to be made extinct. I remember hearing some fundie loons speculating that all the gay/sex scandals that plagued the GOP recently, were really gay democrats, disguising themselves as republicans,gaining office and power posts(over decades?) in the GOP and were operating a secrete plan to destroy the GOP, from within. lol,crazy ,I know. I think it was Pat Roberson,chatting it up with another fundie on his TV show. Where does your head have to be in the world,to come up with something so bizarre as that?It must be a dark,weird place.

rulemylife -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 7:57:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 She believes abstinence isn’t realistic on a tv interview. Except the point is her mother does believe it realistic, even in the face of her own daughter's pregnancy. And this was a woman on the brink of influencing national policy on the issue.

Owner59 -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 8:06:45 AM)
You betcha, [;)] [:D].

lronitulstahp -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 8:07:06 AM)
quote: really? nobody died under clinton? http://www.againstbombing.org/foreignviews.htm Ummm... interesting link...yup...no slant there [8\|]....

Sanity -> RE: Does the Republican party need to change? (2/21/2009 8:08:22 AM)
I wonder what kind of juicy debate fodder we'll have when the Obama offspring gets a little older and THEIR wild days get put under the microscope. Or will their rambunctiousness be declared "off limits" so that the obvious double standards we have now can stay alive. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Except the point is her mother does believe it realistic, even in the face of her own daughter's pregnancy. And this was a woman on the brink of influencing national policy on the issue.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02