Understanding Republicans

[SpeedoGuy]

Right or wrong, I do get concerned when I see attack after attack after attack on everyone that is even remotely associated with the Republican party. On this board, its probably 10 to 1. I don't see much objectivity. I don't see much realism.

Good people can disagree on certain things. Doesn't make anybody wrong. :redface:

A question:

Do you get equally upset when AM radio talk show hosts spout hours of rabidly pro-conservative propaganda on a 10-1 ratio?

'Cause I sure don't see much objectivity there. Or realism.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Liberals believe that a centralized government can take the place of the family. Government does nothing well but what it does worst of all is try to make up for the stuff mom and dad did not take the time to teach you.

Liberals believe the state knows better what to do with your money than you do. Is that the dumbest thing in the world? You can only do 3 things with money 1) save it which is good for everyone, 2) invest it which is good for everyone 3) spend it, which is good for everyone. No one hides their money under a mattress anymore. Liberals want to spend your money on what THEY think is right. Thats artificial. That introduces false demand for products most people don't want.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Good question, Speedo.

the answer is yes. I do.

 

[B_phe1249]

Good question, Speedo.

the answer is yes. I do.

My question is why do the lib shows always fail? Do conservative radio listeners spend more time in their cars or what? Ive always thought there should be a balance in radio, and its been attempted, but failed and I just dont get it

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

My question is why do the lib shows always fail? Do conservative radio listeners spend more time in their cars or what? Ive always thought there should be a balance in radio, and its been attempted, but failed and I just dont get it

Thats a really good question. The liberal radio here has the hokiest ads ever. Ads for debt relief, bail bondsmen, personal injury attorneys, used cars, get rich quick schemes. It targets a really odd sort of listener.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Liberals believe that a centralized government can take the place of the family.

You honestly believe that? Can I get a hit of that indo you're smoking?
On what grounds do you base this on?

Liberals believe the state knows better what to do with your money than you do. Is that the dumbest thing in the world? You can only do 3 things with money 1) save it which is good for everyone, 2) invest it which is good for everyone 3) spend it, which is good for everyone. No one hides their money under a mattress anymore. Liberals want to spend your money on what THEY think is right. Thats artificial. That introduces false demand for products most people don't want.

Why don't you share with the class what liberals want you to spend your money on? Seriously, I need some good laughs.

 

[2322]

Liberals believe that a centralized government can take the place of the family. Government does nothing well but what it does worst of all is try to make up for the stuff mom and dad did not take the time to teach you.

Why do you believe that? Do you see even Communist party members in this country handing their children over to the government for care? Have the Obamas or the Clintons or the Gores done that? Noam Chomsky has three sons. They weren't surrendered to the government either.

Liberals believe the state knows better what to do with your money than you do. Is that the dumbest thing in the world? You can only do 3 things with money 1) save it which is good for everyone, 2) invest it which is good for everyone 3) spend it, which is good for everyone. No one hides their money under a mattress anymore. Liberals want to spend your money on what THEY think is right. Thats artificial. That introduces false demand for products most people don't want.

And Republicans don't? I'm missing the point here because every Republican congressperson and president has spent your money on what they think is right too. They take your money in taxes just as the Democrats do. Bush Sr. voted for a tax increase and Dubya hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like. Even when we had a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican president, spending still went on and you paid taxes just as before.

I believe your argument here is not well-researched or thought out. It seems to me that you're just spouting what conservative propagandists have told you without actually investigating the truth of either matter.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Liberals believe that a centralized government can take the place of the family. Government does nothing well but what it does worst of all is try to make up for the stuff mom and dad did not take the time to teach you.

Liberals believe the state knows better what to do with your money than you do. Is that the dumbest thing in the world? You can only do 3 things with money 1) save it which is good for everyone, 2) invest it which is good for everyone 3) spend it, which is good for everyone. No one hides their money under a mattress anymore. Liberals want to spend your money on what THEY think is right. Thats artificial. That introduces false demand for products most people don't want.

Give us some examples of what you're talking about.

 

[B_phe1249]

Give us some examples of what you're talking about.

If he does not respond I will. But in the morning. The best thing I can offer right now is Aid to Dependant Mothers, that replaced da daddy. Nite

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

More shit slinging. You start off with litany of political insults to everyone's intelligence, and then want to end by playing it cool, like you are a nice guy.

Fuck off, hoser.

Gonna quote this. I looked at about a page of your post history, Star Gazer, and unless you're just having a bad day, you don't really contribute alot. You mostly just insult people and say they're biased against republicans.

Please feel free to start a thread about the good things Republicans do, and why a pro-choice, anti-war person should remain in the party.

 

[deleted15807]

Give us some examples of what you're talking about.

No way that's gonna happen without bursting out laughing.

 

[mista geechee]

...accused the researchers of being "liberals"...

Don't you just hate when that happens?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

If he does not respond I will. But in the morning. The best thing I can offer right now is Aid to Dependant Mothers, that replaced da daddy. Nite

Utter bullshit. It allowed the aid and assistance to single women who also had to raise children. One of the biggest beneficiaries of this were widows... or in cases where the mother and father was unwed and the father didn't live up to his responsibilities. I should know. I was brought up by a single parent. My father died when I was barely in grade school, and my mom didn't feel the need to remarry just to put on some facade of financial stability and family virtue.

Of course, your answer to this would be to have these single moms run the streets looking for a new daddy instead. This was one of the lesser known evils that Republicans used to say went against the sanctity of marriage. That was before blaming the gays became so popular.

 

[deleted15807]

Don't you just hate when that happens?

Well not surprising they've constructed an impenetrable ideology. Anything that questions it is automatically the work of liberals. It's the key reason behind the capsizing of the Bush presidency. And instead of admitting error like most logical reasoning people instead grew more angry and Sarah Palin is the Queen who shall carry the torch of anger for them.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

If he does not respond I will. But in the morning.

I won't be on till tomorrow night, so get a nice big list going....though really, the question was intended to see if he was parroting talking points, rather than trying to get *anyone* to respond.

 

[uniqueusername]

And Republicans don't? I'm missing the point here because every Republican congressperson and president has spent your money on what they think is right too. They take your money in taxes just as the Democrats do. Bush Sr. voted for a tax increase and Dubya hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like. Even when we had a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican president, spending still went on and you paid taxes just as before.

That's an indictment of the Republican party, not conservatives. Bush simply wasn't true to the ideology he claimed to support (or he was to a certain extent, but gave in to special interests).

The Republicans are the more conservative party, but that doesn't mean they are conservative all the time. The politicians in charge are, for the most part, willing to abandon their beliefs in exchange for political expediency. The Bear Stearns bailout was NOT a conservative policy choice at all, but Bush did it anyway because he was (wrongly) afraid of the consequences of NOT doing it.

(If you guys want, I'll explain exactly why corporate bailouts are a bad idea, but that's a tangent this thread probably doesn't want to go down. The gist of it is that they don't allow the market to solve problems on its own. Instead, the government subsidizes the problems and sweeps them under the rug.)

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Liberals believe that a centralized government can take the place of the family. Government does nothing well but what it does worst of all is try to make up for the stuff mom and dad did not take the time to teach you.

This is utter, unmitigated bullshit.

Your government provides you with safe drinking water and keeps your food supply safe.
Your government provides you with roadways, street lighting, traffic signals.
It provides you with police protection.
It provides you with national forests and public parks... with regulations to ensure cleaner air, and it regulates industry to ensure you are covered in case of injury on the job...
It forces employers to pay you for overtime. And to treat you equally as any other employee.

It provides you with the computer you are sitting at- made possible entirely by government funded raw research into quantum physics over 50 years ago.

It provides you with an economy and with the internet.

And when your house catches fire... the people who come and put out the fire and pull your children from a burning house are government employees, using government equipment.
And when you are so old, no private insurer will cover you? It will be your government who pays for your care thru medicaid.


AND WHO has fucked up our economy? Not the defense department... private corporations like ENRON, FANNIE and FREDDIE, the Savings and Loan industry... HMO's ( who have made medical care 5 times as costly as 30 years ago) Private oil companies... who have driven up the cost of living across the board.


I wish to god you conservative dolts would read something other than O'rielly's bullet points.


You have ZERO evidence that govenrment does not do what it does well.

And ample evidence that it is private corporations, buying political influence, that keep fucking everything up.

In fact- the only way the government fails is when the conservatives fail to provide the government with revenue with which to work.


So , really... stop mouthing party platitudes and dogma. If you want to make such statements, then back them up with some damn evidence.


I am sick of conservative hatred for their own nation, their own government, and their fellow citizens.


PS- would you really want a fireman that worked for a profit oriented company?
One who assessed your 'coverage' before rendering aid?

 

[B_New End]

You have ZERO evidence that govenrment does not do what it does well.

And ample evidence that it is private corporations, buying political influence, that keep fucking everything up.

But what is the government, if not political influence. You are trying to blame Bonnie, but not Clyde.

 

[uniqueusername]

You have ZERO evidence that govenrment does not do what it does well.

Our Trillion-Dollar War: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Incredible as it may seem, Americans transfer more than a trillion dollars each year to low-income families through a bewildering variety of programs, all in the name of fighting poverty and inequality. That’s about seven times the cost of the Iraq war. How do we spend so much? In 2005, $620 billion was spent on more than eighty welfare programs funded by federal, state, and local governments. But low-income persons receive benefits from other government programs that are not designated as welfare programs. Most notably, they receive benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and the public school system.
I estimate that Social Security benefits for those in the poorest fifth of the population totaled $100 billion in 2005. Medicare provided another $115 billion, and educating the children of low-income families cost $105 billion more. (These figures do not measure total spending on these programs but only the expenditures benefiting those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution.) To these sums we may add $40 billion in uncompensated medical care and $78 billion in private charity.
Grand total: $1.058 trillion in 2005. It would be larger today.


If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
By any reasonable standard, a trillion dollars devoted to fighting poverty and inequality is a substantial sum.
What do we get for it? That is the question we should be asking our politicians in this election year as they urge us to spend still more on the War on Poverty.
When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:
Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?
Has the trillion-dollar expenditure eliminated poverty in America? Reduced it dramatically?
Has the trillion-dollar expenditure reduced inequality? Are the egalitarians grateful to the American people for their sacrifices in this area, or are they continually carping about increasing inequality?
Are more disadvantaged children being raised in stable two-parent families today than before the War on Poverty?
Are the children in low-income families getting good educations that prepare them for productive lives as adults? Have the racial gaps in educational achievement been eliminated or greatly narrowed?
Has illegitimacy been reduced in the low-income population?
Is crime lower today than in the 1950s, before the War on Poverty?
The answers to these questions, I submit, paint a bleak picture of the accomplishments of the American welfare state. While a nuanced interpretation of the evidence may identify a few positive returns on our “investment,” we have a right to expect a lot more for a trillion dollars a year.

That quote is kind of messy, but you can still read it. I encourage you to read all of it. The gist is, we're spending $27,000 PER POOR PERSON on welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and a few other programs. Where is all of that money going?

By the way, Phil, the government doesn't provide me with a damn thing. I, and most other people, EARN money and send a lot of it to the government in exchange for those services. That's like saying a store "provides" me with milk when I buy it.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

The Republicans are the more conservative party, but that doesn't mean they are conservative all the time. The politicians in charge are, for the most part, willing to abandon their beliefs in exchange for political expediency. The Bear Stearns bailout was NOT a conservative policy choice at all, but Bush did it anyway because he was (wrongly) afraid of the consequences of NOT doing it.

If the GOP isn't acting conservative, what makes them the more conservative choice? Happy thoughts and the words "we are conservatives"?