Republican's weren't always THIS crazy.

Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

VioletGray -> Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/22/2012 11:28:10 PM)
I think that these days people fail to realize how extreme the Right has gotten. It is my personal opinion that the attack on 9-11 did more psychological damage to the U.S. than people realize. There's a joke that "A man becomes a Conservative the first time he gets mugged, and a liberal the first time he goes to jail." Perhaps 9/11 was America getting mugged, but it seems that everything shifted one step to the right. Bill Maher likes to say, "The Left moved to the center, and the Right moved into an insane asylum." There are things that lend merit to this. Here are some things to put it in perspective: First let's start with Dick Cheney talking about Iraq in '94, before 9-11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EstVJo6URdQ Going back further, here is conservative icon Barry Goldwater, on the subject of the Religious Right: "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." Going back even further, here's Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, sounding like a member of Occupy Wall Street: "there can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done. We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs. ”

VioletGray -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/22/2012 11:31:25 PM)
*accidental duplicate

GrandPoobah -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 4:38:26 AM)
While I agree with your general premise, I think two things are actually in play right now. First, politics within the US have grown more polar. Recently I heard an opinion, backed by some very reasonable discussion, that said the change probably dated back to Nixon's Enemies List. I'm not certain it had a definite point where it started, but it's clearly true. The word Compromise has become the ultimate Bad Word, even though we all know that's the only way anything get's done. Second, I have the impression that given a lack of compromise, and a quiet societal movement more towards "progressive" the far Right has grown more and more strident, largely because things seem to be moving away from some of their core "values." As society contemplates things like Gay Marriage, some movement towards universal health care (read Socialized Medicine) and real concerns about the environment, the middle has moved away somewhat, leaving those on the Right feeling more and more isolated. Since that group is frequently "tied" to more fundamentalist religious views, the church dogma becomes more central to their viewpoints, largely because that's where the find each other. GOP candidates have to find a "base" and since the true moderates are less likely to be strident Republicans, the politicians move too, saying what they believe the party faithful want to hear in order to energize them. Of course, that's ultimately counter-productive...because while they may "hold" the base, they lose the middle, which is the group that can actually help them win. It's like yelling to be heard, when, in fact, it's not that you're not being heard, it's that the listeners just don't agree with you. The result is an increase in "us vs. them" rhetoric, and more and more extreme positions. I suspect many might have easily voted for simple things like the debt limit, but find themselves trapped by their own statements, offered to secure their election. Call it the "Grover Norquist syndrome." The suggestion that class warfare is looming only ensures that Class Warfare becomes more likely, and the blind defense of "rich is good and you're just jealous" makes it more likely. Now we're seeing new fronts in this war open daily, with Contraception and women's health suddenly becoming more important than jobs and the economy. Of course, part of that is an economy that is improving, albeit slowly, is the ultimate kiss of death for the GOP in 2012. Statements such as Mitch McConnell's back in 2008, when he declared that "making Obama a one-term President was the most important thing" only fuel the idea that the GOP doesn't really care about anything but preserving the party. In short, it appears that the GOP is doing almost everything it can to ensure that the apparent fracturing of the party continues apace. Shoot self, re-load, shoot self again! GP

Moonhead -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 4:41:56 AM)
The chimp certainly used the Al Queda demolition programme in New York as an excuse to pursue legislation and goals that took his fancy (mostly to do with removing civil liberties and invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks), but the GOP had been heading hard right for quite a while before that. Handing the party over to the religious right, for instance, was mostly Reagan's work. The main impact the events in 2001 did have, was that they gave the incumbent government an excuse to ignore the fact that American society would have preferred to be heading leftwards and steer its management in a hard right direction instead. It's also worth remembering another quotation from Roosevelt in the light of all that "with us or agin' us/why do you hate America?/letting the terrorists win" crap that was spouted whenever any criticism of the chimp and his organ grinder, however trivial, was offered: To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public... Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, 1918.

DarkSteven -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 4:55:42 AM)
Violet, I'm going to agree with a lot of what you said, but disagree with some of it. The main thing I'm going to disagree with is your equating the term "Republican" with "conservative". The party's about to fissure. There are several groups within it, not necessarily exclusive. 1. The fiscal conservatives. They're closely allied with Paul and the Libertarian folks. 2. The untraconservatives and religious right. These folks scare me. They want to legislate away LGBT people, abortions, Planned Parenthood, etc. 3. Neo-cons. Chest thumping chickenhawks. With no experience of war, they think we should use it freely as a solution to all the world's ills and impose a Pax Americana worldwide. They're somewhat subdued after Bush pushed the country into the two stupidest wars in US history, but they'll be back. 4. Loony economists. They believe that tax cuts provide magical economic booms, as well as reduced government spending, despite solid evidence it doesn't work. They claim that the prosperity under Reagan was due to tax and spending cuts, despite the fact that he raised both, and ignore the Bush administration altogether, in which repeated tax cuts managed to cool off a strong economy and increase debt. They correctly state that liberalism leads to a failed economic policy and omit that theirs is worse. 5. The reflexivists. Those who have no independent stances, but simply oppose anything a prominent Democrat does. Obama's Libya policy was a good example, with some Republicans saying both that he should stay out and that he should make a full commitment and commit militarily, depending on what day it was. They literally could not formulate their policy without simply opposing Obama, and opposed him on all grounds inconsistently when he took a nuanced approach. The Fox talking heads and talk radio nuts have created this faction, and Palin pretty much leads it. None of them could formulate a policy if their life depended on it, but they're driving a lot of the party. 6. The classic conservatives. Hold views similar to #1, but willing to compromise. What Republicans used to be. Obviously, Paul is #1 and Santorum is #2. Gingrich is mostly #2 but uses others as talking points sometime. Romney's twisting himself into knots trying to appeal to all the above groups while simultaneously not alienating the moderates that he'll need in the general. The party's having trouble cohering, and I expect some of its factions to split off soon. A brokered convention would force all of them to realize that they're inharmonious and would expedite a breakup.

GrandPoobah -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 4:57:00 AM)
Very true. It often reminds me of Pearl Harbor, not because of a surprise attack that led us directly into war, but because it became an excuse to trample our own Rights. There are many parallels between the internment of Japanese-Americans and the results of the Patriot Act, with the major difference being that the PA applied to everyone not just a single racial group.

GrandPoobah -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 5:05:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Violet, I'm going to agree with a lot of what you said, but disagree with some of it. The main thing I'm going to disagree with is your equating the term "Republican" with "conservative". The party's about to fissure. There are several groups within it, not necessarily exclusive. 1. The fiscal conservatives. They're closely allied with Paul and the Libertarian folks. 2. The untraconservatives and religious right. These folks scare me. They want to legislate away LGBT people, abortions, Planned Parenthood, etc. 3. Neo-cons. Chest thumping chickenhawks. With no experience of war, they think we should use it freely as a solution to all the world's ills and impose a Pax Americana worldwide. They're somewhat subdued after Bush pushed the country into the two stupidest wars in US history, but they'll be back. 4. Loony economists. They believe that tax cuts provide magical economic booms, as well as reduced government spending, despite solid evidence it doesn't work. They claim that the prosperity under Reagan was due to tax and spending cuts, despite the fact that he raised both, and ignore the Bush administration altogether, in which repeated tax cuts managed to cool off a strong economy and increase debt. They correctly state that liberalism leads to a failed economic policy and omit that theirs is worse. 5. The reflexivists. Those who have no independent stances, but simply oppose anything a prominent Democrat does. Obama's Libya policy was a good example, with some Republicans saying both that he should stay out and that he should make a full commitment and commit militarily, depending on what day it was. They literally could not formulate their policy without simply opposing Obama, and opposed him on all grounds inconsistently when he took a nuanced approach. The Fox talking heads and talk radio nuts have created this faction, and Palin pretty much leads it. None of them could formulate a policy if their life depended on it, but they're driving a lot of the party. 6. The classic conservatives. Hold views similar to #1, but willing to compromise. What Republicans used to be. Obviously, Paul is #1 and Santorum is #2. Gingrich is mostly #2 but uses others as talking points sometime. Romney's twisting himself into knots trying to appeal to all the above groups while simultaneously not alienating the moderates that he'll need in the general. The party's having trouble cohering, and I expect some of its factions to split off soon. A brokered convention would force all of them to realize that they're inharmonious and would expedite a breakup. Very true. I think the difference VioletGray was suggesting tends to hide those cracks. Almost any sizable group includes that sort of fractionalization, and certainly neither major party has been monolithic since forever. If the GOP really does fall apart, which seems more and more possible, the groups you identify could well become "separate." I would assume at some point some of them would make common cause and perhaps "re-join" as a more-or-less single entity. One thing I think we're seeing again is the rise of candidates who advocate policies they could never actually "do" if they were in office. For example, there's been some talk about "jumping into Syria" or "let's just take out Iran." Those are great sound bits, and certainly have some appeal, but the Facts associated with that sort of action clearly make the actions VERY questionable. Political promises have always been worth exactly what you paid for them, but it is a bit scary that the statements are being made. If nothing changes, the convention will be something we haven't seen in a long time, and the result would likely be both intriguing...and ugly. If the "tea party" element was to continue demanding a candidate they could back, and the religious right made certain things a "litmus test" I doubt they'd even find a candidate. In any case, the next few months are going to be interesting...to say the least. GP

DarkSteven -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 6:22:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah One thing I think we're seeing again is the rise of candidates who advocate policies they could never actually "do" if they were in office. For example, there's been some talk about "jumping into Syria" or "let's just take out Iran." Those are great sound bits, and certainly have some appeal, but the Facts associated with that sort of action clearly make the actions VERY questionable. Political promises have always been worth exactly what you paid for them, but it is a bit scary that the statements are being made. I agree with what you say, but the above most. LBJ was such a notorious liar that the term "credibility gap" was created to define the difference between his words and his actions, and things have not gotten better since.

Fellow -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 9:02:12 AM)
Left vs right, republicans vs Democrats is a distraction. If people could just separate the effective representatives with good ideas and the clowns with BS (throwing the last out) things could improve in time. A useful monologue that may get you fired: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SplzYhjnoCg

joether -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 10:00:43 AM)
I had one conservative moron preach to me that we should be running goverment like a business. Apparently he needed schooling on why this was a bad idea... If we ran the US Goverment like a business: 1) We'd instantly have to raise President Obama's salary and benefits up to about $90 million/year. Since he controls a 'business' thats 310 million strong, and that some companies pay their 'President' tens of millions of dollars for companies that are 1/100th the size of our 'company'; we are getting a deal with $90 million/year. Plus we'd have to raise all the salaries of 'upper management' people at the White House $2-27 million/year. They do such 'hard work' and deserve it, just like the upper management guys at many large corporations. Oh, and given Congress's status, we'll have to increase every member of the House and Senate by $5-12 Million. But make sure to lower anyone that is not considered 'middle management''s salary and benefits down to barely nothing (so that we dont cut into our bottom line because of excessive spending, right?). 2) On the topic of Congress. If your a manager of a large company, and find 231 individual managers who are working to undermine your ability to lead the company, would you leave them in place......or fire their asses out of the company? Just think how much better this country would be with NO REPUBLICANS in any of the three branchs of goverment! Also we'll have to fire all those register as Republican that work for the goverment. That would instantly create jobs that could be filled by plenty of loyal and good Democrats! 3) Since we are running at a decifit, that means either A) lean on our sales guys to make more money or B) Cut expenses. I know, conservatives think that since the US Goverment doesnt employ sales people we'll have to cut expenses, right? WRONG. We in the goverment already have a mechanism to handle revunue shortfalls: TAXES! That's right, we'll just tax the hell out of conservatives and go alittle easier on liberals. Why cut expenses when we can just force conservatives to shoulder the burden more? They are the ones highly advocating running goverment like a business! 4) How many company presidents do you know that would act within the rules set by another entity if they didnt have to? Since our President is the CEO, and CEO's typically set laws, our President should be able to redo the whole US Constitution at his desire. So, he'll throw out those useless 2nd and 10th Amendments. They only serve to create disharmony in our wonderful country. And set up 're-education camps' for those whom dissent with our President, now God-Emporer in title and will! Don't worry, we'll make sure those conservatives are treated for their numerous mental and emotional illnesses in a 'kind', 'compassionate' and 'friendly' manner.....just like they would to all of us, if the situtaion was reverse, right? The more I said this, to this guy, the more his eyes bulged out of his head, his jaw dropped in both surprise and terror. Finally I looked at the guy like what I just said was perfectlly normal and correct....like it was already set in stone. I asked him "Do you STILL want to run goverment like a business'? He turned and ran (not walked) from the crazy liberal. I find just using these four examples, mixing with how conservatives react when one of their leader types drops the 'fear card', sort of shock the person back to reality. Needless to say thats one less conservatives that advocates running goverment like a business.

joether -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 10:06:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven 1. The fiscal conservatives. They're closely allied with Paul and the Libertarian folks. 2. The untraconservatives and religious right. These folks scare me. They want to legislate away LGBT people, abortions, Planned Parenthood, etc. 3. Neo-cons. Chest thumping chickenhawks. With no experience of war, they think we should use it freely as a solution to all the world's ills and impose a Pax Americana worldwide. They're somewhat subdued after Bush pushed the country into the two stupidest wars in US history, but they'll be back. 4. Loony economists. They believe that tax cuts provide magical economic booms, as well as reduced government spending, despite solid evidence it doesn't work. They claim that the prosperity under Reagan was due to tax and spending cuts, despite the fact that he raised both, and ignore the Bush administration altogether, in which repeated tax cuts managed to cool off a strong economy and increase debt. They correctly state that liberalism leads to a failed economic policy and omit that theirs is worse. 5. The reflexivists. Those who have no independent stances, but simply oppose anything a prominent Democrat does. Obama's Libya policy was a good example, with some Republicans saying both that he should stay out and that he should make a full commitment and commit militarily, depending on what day it was. They literally could not formulate their policy without simply opposing Obama, and opposed him on all grounds inconsistently when he took a nuanced approach. The Fox talking heads and talk radio nuts have created this faction, and Palin pretty much leads it. None of them could formulate a policy if their life depended on it, but they're driving a lot of the party. 6. The classic conservatives. Hold views similar to #1, but willing to compromise. What Republicans used to be. And how many of these people hold the people they elect to public office to the same exact level of accountibility and responsbility as they slam President Obama every hour? Shouldnt they hold their elected officals to an even HIGHER standard of work ethic, tasks completed and 'getting shit done' as they bash the President?

Kirata -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 10:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether the more his eyes bulged out of his head... his jaw dropped in both surprise and terror... He turned and ran... Just wow ...the excitement! ...the pathos! Great story. K.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 11:30:17 AM)
Well if we assume the Radicals do break up, as seems likely (please, please, pleeassee God!) what will our political structure look like? This country is geared to a two party system, unlike the Parliamentary system (for which we can be truly thankful - imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months), so if the Radicals split up into several minority parties, they will be effectively excluded. Someone suggested they would split, then work together for their common interest, but if so, why would they split to begin with? The question isn't why they would split, or whether they've thought this through (they obviously haven't), but rather what would be the consequences? Anyone? [sm=jerry.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=jerry.gif]

Moonhead -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 1:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking This country is geared to a two party system, unlike the Parliamentary system (for which we can be truly thankful - imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months) Can you suggest an example of the British parliamentary government collapsing every few months? So far as I know, her Maj has only had to abolish and reform her government once since the war...

SoftBonds -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 1:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking This country is geared to a two party system, unlike the Parliamentary system (for which we can be truly thankful - imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months) Can you suggest an example of the British parliamentary government collapsing every few months? So far as I know, her Maj has only had to abolish and reform her government once since the war... Yeah, but that is GB... Imagine the US with a Libertarian Party, Conservative party, Christian party, and Fiscal party on the right, along with a Green Party, a Liberty party, a Liberal party, and a Minority Rights party on the Left? Imagine the battles between the Libertarian party and the Liberty (ACLU) party alone??? The US wouldn't be able to keep a government together for a week!

Moonhead -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 1:30:10 PM)
Seen. I thought he was talking actual history not a hypothetical hung US parliament...

GrandPoobah -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 1:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Well if we assume the Radicals do break up, as seems likely (please, please, pleeassee God!) what will our political structure look like? This country is geared to a two party system, unlike the Parliamentary system (for which we can be truly thankful - imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months), so if the Radicals split up into several minority parties, they will be effectively excluded. Someone suggested they would split, then work together for their common interest, but if so, why would they split to begin with? The question isn't why they would split, or whether they've thought this through (they obviously haven't), but rather what would be the consequences? Anyone? [sm=jerry.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=jerry.gif] While the current system IS geared towards two dominant parties, it can handle more. There are provisions for that. I'll grant you I don't necessarily think they're good provisions, but at least they exist. Probably the best change would be to abolish the Electoral College and directly elect the President. The person receiving the most votes from everywhere wins. It's true that might mean somebody would win with 35% of the votes, but...they'd have demonstrated that more people want them than anyone else running. Short of that, changing to anything else would mean major changes to the Constitution, and opening that can of worms scares me more than anything. Can you imagine a Constitutional Convention, where anything and everything is on the table? The battles in Congress would look like a minor squabble in the sand box by comparison. Hmmm, come to think about it, the battles in Congress DO look like a sandbox squabble. A whole lot of infantile behavior! Here's a book you might consider that has some of the possible answers: http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Things-Restore-American-Dream/dp/1456467964/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296281800&sr=1-1

Aswad -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 1:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months It seems you have a rather skewed idea of how parliamentary democracies work. That aside, any functional democracy has a continuous campaign season: making the country work, day by day, so that people are well acquainted with your policies and results, come election time. Of course, this already happens through media filtering, but you would see politicians constantly trying to score on actual actions, actual issues and actual accomplishments. To take credit, however, you need something (real or imagined) to take credit for, so you can't fuck the country up the ass on a continuous basis. Incidentally, most of us get by fine with a dozen or so major parties. And without any collapses (you do know we're laughing at the circus, right?). Health, al-Aswad.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 2:49:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking This country is geared to a two party system, unlike the Parliamentary system (for which we can be truly thankful - imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months) Can you suggest an example of the British parliamentary government collapsing every few months? So far as I know, her Maj has only had to abolish and reform her government once since the war... Actually I was thinking of the French prior to WW 2, where the average government lasted less than 6 months, or the Italians, where they were going through governments like disposable hankies for quite some time. GB is lucky in its relative political stability. With the climate today, we can't (dare not) presume the same good fortune. [sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif][sm=soapbox.gif]

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Republican's weren't always THIS crazy. (2/23/2012 3:04:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking imagine a permanent campaign season as the government collapses every few months It seems you have a rather skewed idea of how parliamentary democracies work. Actually I am a dedicated history enthusiast, and I daresay I have a pretty fair idea of how parliamentary government really works, as compared to the paper theory. Suggested reading: Collapse Of The Third Republic - Wm L. Shirer Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich - Wm L. Shirer And for those Congressional system apologists: Glory Road - Bruce Catton (Editor of American Heritage) Scary stuff, these. [sm=afraid.gif]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875