carlfense Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 90s Republicans believed in global warming. 90s Republicans wrote a health care plan that focused on an individual mandate. Now the GOP says those are "socialist." Could you explain how that is "the GOP moving to the left?" I guess I don't recall the Republicans ever being big supporters of global warming. They may have believed it until further research proved global warming to be inconclusive. As for the individual mandate, from what I gather, the individual health insurance mandate was designed by Republicans as an alternative to President Bill Clinton’s health care reform plan in the 1990s. It was specifically seen as a way to prevent a government takeover of health care, which is not exactly the same thing as Obamacare. So again, you are fudging the truth and comparing apples to oranges. Even if it were, I didn't realize that is was some sort of sin to recognize that something you once stood for was not inline with your core values, and to change your stance on said issue. Could you give me an example of the things JFK said that sound like Limbaugh or Beck? http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/AS08q5oYz0SFUZg9uOi4iw.aspx "There has also been a change--a slippage--in our intellectual and moral strength. Seven lean years of drouth and famine have withered a field of ideas. Blight has descended on our regulatory agencies--and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America--in the payola mentality, the expense account way of life, the confusion between what is legal and what is right. Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose." Unfortunately, I couldn't find the speech I was looking for. I skimmed a couple of his speeches for a few minutes, but I have other more pressing obligations and responsibilities to attend to. Since you have time, you can check here: http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/Historic-Speeches.aspx. The 'baggers keep moving right because . . . well . . . they are a little historically and factually challenged. To put it mildly. To put it a bit more accurately, they are a prominent example of our Post-Truth Era. That is your opinion. Great, but you are anything but unbiased. And it still doesn't support your claim that the Republican Party as a whole is moving towards the right. Common sense should tell you that if the entire party is moving right, there would be no need for a substantial portion of their base to feel disenfranchised and move even farther right. The reason for the tea party movement is because Republicans lost touch with their voting block, and lost touch with their supposed conservative core values. A fact that pretty much any tea partier will tell you. Also, please explain how tea partiers are historically and factually challenged, and please explain your disdain for a "grassroots" organization that simply is for lower taxation and fiscal responsibility in the government. Irrelevant. To put it in household terms (as the 'baggers love to do) if you are bringing $500 in and spending $500 you're not running a deficit. If you keep spending that $500 and reduce your income to $250 . . . you're suddenly running a deficit of $250. It's not because of increased spending . . . it's because of decreased revenue. The effect is the same. A deficit. It has nothing to do with your "government generously allowing us to keep what meager pittance they see fit." Ideological arguments fare poorly in the real world. Totally relevant. What you are failing to grasp is that it is not the responsibility of the government to be a money making entity, especially when it is off the backs of taxpayers. I'm not sure how things work in your life, but in the real world, if you went from making and spending $500 to making $250, you had better damn well not keep spending $500. In my world, money doesn't grow on trees, nor can I print up a whole bunch of it to pay for things that I can't afford. It's called being fiscally responsible. And you, of all people, talking about ideological arguments faring poorly is the epitome of hipocrisy. Democrats of 20 years ago are largely the Republicans of today. fify Reagan, among others, would be unelectable in the modern day GOP. Again, your biased opinion only. If he were unelectable, it would be because he leaned too far right for today's political climate. The way I see it, the GOP will push this to an extreme until the public lashes back against it and they will then drift back towards the mainstream. The GOP has no leg to stand on. They have lost their way, lost touch with their conservative roots. It is hardly the party of Lincoln anymore. The problem is, the public keeps wanting more and more, and we have too damn many elected officials who will roll over to the whims of those who will not do for themselves. They have no problem selling out to ensure that they will be re-elected (see the gutless, cowardly rino John Boehner). Ah yes, that individual mandate is nothing like the individual mandate that Obama supported. That's a perfect example of the Post-Truth Era. You're making my arguments for me, which is convenient. That JFK speech could have been made by any president of the last 50 years. Perhaps if you found something complaining about Islam or those damn gays it would be more similar to Limbaugh and Beck? That's weak stuff . . . and you know it. I do appreciate your "Well, I can't provide factual support . . . but here's a link and maybe you can find something that supports what I'm spouting." The Tea Party being factually/historically challenged?! Oh my . . . where to begin. Here's a slideshow that shouldn't take you to long to skim. (WARNING: it's written . . . so you probably won't believe it.) So you're saying that when Bush made massive tax cuts he should have cut spending instead of massively increasing spending? If so, I agree with you. It's not just me saying that about Reagan. It's prominent Republicans saying that about Reagan. Which one of these things would 'baggers support? (Note: this is where the Post-Truth Era kicks in again. Ask most Tea Partiers about these things that Reagan did and they will vehemently deny that he did them. They adamantly refuse to acknowledge well documented history.) Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 It's not just me saying that about Reagan. It's prominent Republicans saying that about Reagan. Which one of these things would 'baggers support? (Note: this is where the Post-Truth Era kicks in again. Ask most Tea Partiers about these things that Reagan did and they will vehemently deny that he did them. They adamantly refuse to acknowledge well documented history.) And this is why 'baggers are labeled as petulant children--because instead of owning up to facts, they do the political equivilent of covering their ears and yelling LALALALALALALALA at the top of their lungs. For examples, see Palin and Paul Revere, Bachman and the Constitution, the Texas State Board of Education and their revisionist history attempts of last year. What's sad is that their ignorance only only outstripped by their hypocrisy: 'baggers that are deadbeat dads, leave Vegas holding $200k+ bills after their conventions, lying about rally attendance, Palin quitting her position as Alaska's governor, Bachman's husband...the list goes on and on. But what's scary is their attacks on intellectualism--for them, it's perfectly okay to poorly educate our children, and if Rick Perry's attitudes are any indication, schools across the nation will be slashed if he goes to Washington. It's honestly as if the 'baggers strategy is for the USA to fail miserably into chaos. Link to comment
Malth Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 The Tea Party is hardly a grassroots organization, and you could claim they were for fiscal responsibility if they weren't so out of touch with reality. They are essentially extremists who seem to view any government spending and any taxation as a bad thing. Their desire to do nothing but gut government spending while outright refusing any sort of revenue increase in the middle of a recession is just ridiculous. The immediate consequences of such is higher unemployment and a lower GDP. I'm sure everyone in the country agrees that we should be fiscally responsible, but only a very small portion of them are willing to let the economy crash and burn in order to get their way. Big business and rich people have f'd us. Yet we're supposed to deal with austerity cuts, while the very small percentage of people who have the vast majority of wealth continue unaffected. And the worst part is that the middle and lower class are the cheerleaders for it. Every single Tea Party extremist candidate needs to be voted out of office ASAP. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 They're just as grassroots as Tom Osborne Field. Link to comment
strigori Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 They're just as grassroots as Tom Osborne Field. Wait, wait, wait.... You mean its not grass??? But, but, but its so green.... and green=grass....Right? Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 8, 2011 Author Share Posted August 8, 2011 A Timeline of Events Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we? 1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget 1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt. 1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans. 1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged. 2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget. 2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade. 2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt. 2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them. 2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility. 2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction. September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility. October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future. November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility. December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility. March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved. July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets. August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility. There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse. Link to comment
HUSKER 37 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 http://www.ebaumsworld.com/player.swf?id2=81722169 Link to comment
Malth Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 squirrel propaganda? I really hope that was a parody, and not some teabagger trying to make a serious point. Link to comment
HUSKER 37 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 It was from a local radio jock bashing baggers Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQvzTktTJ0 http://www.huffingto...y_n_941099.html Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 http://www.bloomberg...-loopholes.html Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/solyndra-funder-kaiser-paid-zero-taxes-years Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 gobiggergoredder, I can't watch videos at work. I read the articles. What point are you trying to make, exactly? That these corporations should pay more in taxes? If so, I agree. Are you saying that political donors are rewarded with preferential treatment? If so, I agree. I guess I'm not sure where this is going. Link to comment
Recommended Posts