Incoming Flame - Republicans ...

The Republican Party
1) Against allowing Defense Contract Employees having their rape allegations be settled in court.
2) Against limiting pay of executives in bailed out Financial Firms (see Neil Kavuto's spirited objection to this).
3) Against collecting rightful taxes from Corporations who hide their money in the Cayman Islands.
4) Against government run, non-profit Health Insurance Public Option to compete with Private Companies.
5) For Insurance Companies being allowed to drop you when you get sick.
6) For 15% capital gains tax, which means top 1% richest people pay a lower percent tax than a Waitress or Teacher.
7) For Corporate Welfare
8) For War (to make Haliburton money)
9) For Fundamentalists (Religious people are actually the Republican's pawns, Republicans won't actually make abortion illegal, otherwise they would have no issue to run on).

...

No Democrats are not perfect either, many of them are also paid by the Corporate lobbyists, but they are not all bought. There are a few good Democratic Senators and House members left.

capsulecorpjx - The Mark Gambo of liberals (except more annoying)!!!

I thought a republican was a guy that owned 2 ale-houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

capsulecorpjx - The Mark Gambo of liberals (except more annoying)!!!

---

Well put.

Nice blanket statement(s) there.

The Dems would never vote for Corporate Welfare. Only republicans voted for TARP. Now please explain to me how TARP AND TALF got passed with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

You fail to realize that party lines only matter to the average (dumb) US citizen. Both parties are bought and paid for by lobbyists.

I suggest you do some reading on a man named Ron Paul. He's a Repub from Texas. He has a lot of good ideas, but he's not "politiciany" enough to get elected as President. He doesn't parade around and promise people a bunch of things he can't and won't deliver.

He reminds me a lot of Ross Perot, a man that was written off as a crazy person. Perot warned us about NAFTA, and now everyone with half a brain (note: does not apply to most Americans) knows what the big sucking sound is with jobs (hint: Mexico and Canada have more car plants for "U.S" car manufacturers than the US does).

Pay attention to the Federal Reserve. The PRIVATE institution that controls the nation's money supply and interest rates. Want to know why your savings rate at your bank is nothing? It's because the Fed is lending money to their bank buddies at 0% interest. The real kick in the pants is that these banks then turn around and put the money in the stock market, instead of lending it to consumers and businesses to get the economy going again. Want to know who the Fed answers to? Here's a hint, it ain't you, me, or anyone on Capitol Hill.

The sooner people realize that lobbyists, and the whole of corporate America, is playing BOTH sides of the aisle like a fiddle, the sooner we can elect reps that will institute real change, instead of the ones that just talk about it.

Sounds like someone had a little too much kool aid last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Sounds like someone had a little too much kool aid last night.

---

Hmmm kool-aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Hmmm kool-aid.

---

I think he meant hatorade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

capsulecorpjx - The Mark Gambo of liberals (except more annoying)!!!

---

Does Mark still post here?

No, he hasn't been around for a time now. I find it kind of odd that everybody seems to see him as the archetypical conservative poster. He was conservative, but I never thought of him as being particularly strident.

@Wossname: Ugh!!! That's what I'd expect from an extractor fan.

Also, why is this in CC. Why not in World Events? The place was showing the briefest flickering of life, perhaps this could have sustained the rally.

@System Error: The hate label is becoming so wildly overused that it threatens to become the impotent label of the decade. All disagreement is called hate. Why? Is disagreement never enough anymore? Is dislike too tepid? Leave that word for the exclusive use of those who know how to take it to extremes. Leave it for the nazis, racists, anti-semites, xenophobes, germaphobes, and other minor Martian moons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

All disagreement is called hate.

---

Sometimes, yes, but this is not one of those times. There's disagreement and there are those who are so consumed with anger, bitterness and hatred for those with which they disagree that they lie in bed awake at night thinking of their next internet post describing just how angry, bitter and hateful they are.

I've been telling our capsule corpse-ing friend for quite some time that he should lighten up and try not to be so full of hate and rage but what do I know? I'm just one of those greedy, warmongering, selfish, scummy conservatives he so loves to rail on about and blame for his sorry plight in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik

Perot warned us about NAFTA, and now everyone with half a brain (note: does not apply to most Americans) knows what the big sucking sound is with jobs (hint: Mexico and Canada have more car plants for "U.S" car manufacturers than the US does).

---

And yet they still can't turn a profit and need yet another infusion of billions of freshly printed dollars... Imagine the state of GM and Chrysler if they had to pay all those Mexican workers UAW wages and benefits.

I'll give you that UAW demands put a hurt on GM, but there was a lot more wrong with GM than just the unions. Same goes for Chrysler. But, that's another topic entirely.

Yeah, health care obligations.

Still, to derail the thread a bit, I feel that GM didn't truly embrace the market, but were well contented embracing only one slice of the total market. The slice faltered...and so did GM.

Quote:

---

Sometimes, yes, but this is not one of those times. There's disagreement and there are those who are so consumed with anger, bitterness and hatred for those with which they disagree that they lie in bed awake at night thinking of their next internet post describing just how angry, bitter and hateful they are.

---

You're right, of course. I was generalizing because it seems to me that we are increasingly labeling all who disagree with us as haters. It certainly is NOT true, in fact, so the label just acts to increase the divide. Dismissing somebody by saying that their position is simply motivated by hate is about the same as putting your fingers in your ears. Therefore, I say we should call hate hate, and not elevate disagreement to hate.

Quote:

---

I've been telling our capsule corpse-ing friend for quite some time that he should lighten up and try not to be so full of hate and rage but what do I know?

---

Lighten up, yes, but hate and rage? Those seem rather too energetic, to me. Ol, Capsule Corpse, he of the nearly unspellable (and unfathomable) name, does seem to start threads that are doleful and even pessimistic, but hate? For whom does his droll dole toll?

Quote:

---

I'm just one of those greedy, warmongering, selfish, scummy conservatives he so loves to rail on about and blame for his sorry plight in life.

---

Hard to hate you, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

Sometimes, yes, but this is not one of those times. There's disagreement and there are those who are so consumed with anger, bitterness and hatred for those with which they disagree that they lie in bed awake at night thinking of their next internet post describing just how angry, bitter and hateful they are.

I've been telling our capsule corpse-ing friend for quite some time that he should lighten up and try not to be so full of hate and rage but what do I know? I'm just one of those greedy, warmongering, selfish, scummy conservatives he so loves to rail on about and blame for his sorry plight in life.



And yet they still can't turn a profit and need yet another infusion of billions of freshly printed dollars... Imagine the state of GM and Chrysler if they had to pay all those Mexican workers UAW wages and benefits.

---

What are you takling about? I am lightened up.

As for GM and Chrysler, yes they should alet them gone bankrupt. I don't know where that came from.

As for the big Financial Institutions, I kind of believe when they say that they need to be bailed out or the entire economy tanks. However I rather they have fired all the executives and all the traders in those companies, replace them with other people or even college grads.

Cancel all bonus contracts. What they can do is move all those executives to a new subsidiary company and underfund that and let it go bankrupt (to get out of giving bonuses), this is a common practice by many corporations actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Cancel all bonus contracts. What they can do is move all those executives to a new subsidiary company and underfund that and let it go bankrupt (to get out of giving bonuses), this is a common practice by many corporations actually.

---

What I have heard is exactly the reverse of this practice. That's how corporations screw shareholders.:cry: :cry:

Quote:

---

As for the big Financial Institutions

---

One of the things that worries me about this recession is that I keep hearing people saying the banks were 'too big to be allowed to fail' and using it as an argument to break up the banks. I think they probably are to big to fail now but in the 1920's they were all small and that's credited as one of the factors that caused the crash; their lack of size meant that they were less robust and less able to remain liquid, hastening the speed with which runs on banks emerged. It's good that we're learning from the recent historys of the current recession but worries me that we're ignoring the lessons of the MUCH bigger crash a century ago.

Quote:

---

However I rather they have fired all the executives and all the traders in those companies, replace them with other people or even college grads.

---

My idealistic heart completely agrees with you but my pragmatic mind says the college grads would be just as greedy and less competent. I suspect the truth is that the only way to keep 'em in line is to regulate 'em and, since we're now in a globalised economy where National legislation would simply mean they would move to a less regulated nation, that means worldwide regulation is required. That which means a worldwide government and I'm really not sure I like that idea.

The Republican party was born out of Wisconsin in the late 1800's.

"Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers" - wikipedia

Sounds like they made good on all accounts.

So what was your problem with the Republican party?

Oh that's right, you want a bunch of elected fools to tell you how to run your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

The Republican party was born out of Wisconsin in the late 1800's.

"Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers" - wikipedia

Sounds like they made good on all accounts.

So what was your problem with the Republican party?

Oh that's right, you want a bunch of elected fools to tell you how to run your life.

---

I never said the Republicans were for slavery.

Republicans eventually switched over to the conservative side after Roosevelt. And the Democrats switched to the Progressive/Liberal side.

Neither party ever advocated a return to Slavery, post WWII, and neither party is for segregation currently.

It is true that both parties are more or less prostitutes to the Corporate Lobbyists.

But the Republicans are worse than the Democrats on average, and much more blatant in their defense of their bribers, the worst being Haliburton and the Private Insurance Industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

But the Republicans are worse than the Democrats on average, and much more blatant in their defense of their bribers

---

Only if you completely and totally ignore the antics of labor unions. Or the entire city of Chicago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

The Republican party was born out of Wisconsin in the late 1800's.

---

Mid-1800s, since Lincoln was the first Republican president, which would be the election of 1860. The party would have had to have been born earlier, though probably not much earlier.

Quote:

---

Republicans eventually switched over to the conservative side after Roosevelt. And the Democrats switched to the Progressive/Liberal side.

---

The south went Republican when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Prior to that, the south was Democratic because Lincoln was a Republican. Interestingly, LBJ correctly predicted the party switch of the south before he signed the Civil Rights Act. Predicting a correct outcome after it has happened is no great feat. Predicting it before it happens suggests some insight.

Roughly speaking, the Republican party formed on an anti-slavery, big government platform, because the slave owning southern states were fighting for states rights/property rights/small government (all of which were pro-slavery fig leaves), which were the Democratic principles. Now, the parties claim to have switched, as it is the Republicans who are states rights/property rights/small government, and the southern states switched parties when the Democrats embraced equality. In short, the racist element moved to Republican in the 60s, which is as close as we come to pro-slavery today.

So, yes, the Republican party was the progressive party in the 1800s, while the Democrats were the conservative party. The two switched sides over the 40s through the 60s, but one thing the Republicans have retained is favoring big government. It's a different flavor of big government, but government has grown faster under the R administrations than under the D administrations for the last three decades. The talking points are not in agreement with the actions taken.

Frankly, I expect that we will see a further change in the parties over the next couple decades, but not a switch in sides that happened in the last century. The Civil War echoed down through the decades, and predicted the party affiliations of most of the states that had been involved (and a few others). That seems to be dying out a bit. However, the R party is composed of two pieces: Socials and Financials. These two don't really overlap, and don't really seem to like each other all that much. The D party has taken on a sprawling strategy of backing anybody willing to run with a D by their name, regardless of their actual position. I would expect that the R party will split along its internal division, with one half retaining the name and stealing a significant whack of people from the D party, while the other party will swith to D or to a third position, though those tend to be only temporary in our system.

That's my prediction, and if you don't believe me, come get me out of the retirement home for aging hikers in three or four decades and we can discuss who was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

In short, the racist element moved to Republican in the 60s, which is as close as we come to pro-slavery today.

---

Heh... reminds me of a sign spotted at one of the recent Tea Party protests:

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/racism_sign.jpg

I would argue that the racist element didn't switch parties, it merely switched directions. So-called "affirmative action," racial quotas, and general racial bean counting are promoted almost exclusively by the Democrats. It is the Democrat party that has become obsessed with the color of skin, and when conservatives or Republicans (the two are no longer synonymous) try to argue in favor of judging people solely by the content of their character we are the ones automatically deemed as "racists."

It is yet another thing I find highly offensive and yet another reason I tend to avoid listening to the mainstream media.

Quote:

---

I would expect that the R party will split along its internal division, with one half retaining the name and stealing a significant whack of people from the D party, while the other party will swith to D or to a third position, though those tend to be only temporary in our system.

---

Interesting thought, Shag. I believe we have seen some of this already. Take for instance Giuliani and McCain. I feel they are a bit.... misplaced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

I would argue that the racist element didn't switch parties, it merely switched directions. So-called "affirmative action," racial quotas, and general racial bean counting are promoted almost exclusively by the Democrats. It is the Democrat party that has become obsessed with the color of skin, and when conservatives or Republicans (the two are no longer synonymous) try to argue in favor of judging people solely by the content of their character we are the ones automatically deemed as "racists."

---

I have no problem with what you said, and I wasn't talking about you anyways. The groups I am talking about are the Aryan Nations (you will find ID associated with them quite often), militia groups, constitutionalist, white supremacists, and other types. They are fringe groups, but entirely in the R column. At one point, though, their positions were not fringe, and at that time, I think they were largely D (Dixiecrats, KKK, etc.).

To go a bit further on the party split, notice that the Democrats have taken a strong majority in the house. The Rs can't block squat, but they don't need to, as the Ds are blocking things right and left. The D plan was to support anybody who would run as a D and could win. They built a tent so big that there are people in it who aren't even related (politically). Meanwhile, enrollment in the R party has declined significantly (though that doesn't mean the Ds are gaining, because they aren't, really). The base from which the Rs have drawn support has declined, while the base from which the Ds have drawn support has grown, but that base is changing its views. The generation that fought the race battles of Civil Rights is aging. Their replacements have much different agendas. However, this doesn't mean that they want to go R. This, coupled with the broad tent approach, could marginalize the Rs and split the Ds. Since no party wants to be powerless, I would expect that the major fault line in the R party would cause both sides to seek to merge with like minded groups. Right now, the two halves of the R party are not like minded, but remain together because unity gives each side a strength that they would otherwise lack. If the R party fades, the two halves will lack the incentive to remain in an uncomfortable union. As the D party changes, the two halves of the R party will merge with, and splinter, the unweildly D party.

All the pieces of this are currently in place. Furthermore, it has happened before in this country (we didn't always have Rs, and the Ds were once quite different). On the other hand, something totally different could happen. For one thing, there is considerable affinity for a party. After all, the Ds moved left on civil rights, but the south didn't switch parties until the passage of the Civil Rights Act shocked them out of a distaste for the R party that was still lingering from the Civil War, despite the fact that none of the people involved had been alive during the Civil War. Therefore, a percieved identification with a single party can keep people voting for that party long after the party has ceased to represent their interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The groups I am talking about are the Aryan Nations (you will find ID associated with them quite often), militia groups, constitutionalist, white supremacists, and other types. They are fringe groups, but entirely in the R column. At one point, though, their positions were not fringe, and at that time, I think they were largely D (Dixiecrats, KKK, etc.).

---

At the time they were pretty much all Ds and all are still quite on the fringe. And I'm thinking your definition of "constitutionalist" is quite different from mine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

After all, the Ds moved left on civil rights, but the south didn't switch parties until the passage of the Civil Rights Act shocked them out of a distaste for the R partythat was still lingering from the Civil War, despite the fact that none of the people involved had been alive during the Civil War.

---

Now I consider myself a student of history (currently building a website dedicated to Ohio trolley lines - all dead by 1938), but not political history. The way I understand it the Civil Rights Act was locked in a house committee by southern Democrats and the bill likely would have died there if not for president Kennedy's fateful ride through Dealey Plaza. Once Lyndon Johnson was sworn in he twisted enough Democrat arms to finally move the bill to the house floor for a vote.

Republicans voted 80%-20% for the Civil Rights Act in both the house and senate. A very inconvenient historic fact that gets glossed over all too often or completely ignored altogether.

But you are trying to tell me that southern racists switched to the Republican party because of Republican support for the Civil Rights Act?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

At the time they were pretty much all Ds and all are still quite on the fringe. And I'm thinking your definition of "constitutionalist" is quite different from mine...

---

Yeah. I may well have the wrong name for the group. I'm refering to the group that believes that anything not explicitly included in the Constitution is explicitly illegal, regardless of laws.

Quote:

---

Now I consider myself a student of history (currently building a website dedicated to Ohio trolley lines - all dead by 1938), but not political history. The way I understand it the Civil Rights Act was locked in a house committee by southern Democrats and the bill likely would have died there if not for president Kennedy's fateful ride through Dealey Plaza. Once Lyndon Johnson was sworn in he twisted enough Democrat arms to finally move the bill to the house floor for a vote.

Republicans voted 80%-20% for the Civil Rights Act in both the house and senate. A very inconvenient historic fact that gets glossed over all too often or completely ignored altogether.

But you are trying to tell me that southern racists switched to the Republican party because of Republican support for the Civil Rights Act?

---

[/QUOTE]

None of that surprises me, though I didn't know the details about R voting patterns. LBJ was very much an arm twister, and the Rs at the time were to the left of where the Ds are today. I'm not suggesting that the south went R because the Rs supported the Civil Rights Act, but LBJ stated that the south would go R because the Ds pushed the Civil Rights Act, and the south did go R immediately afterwards. There is almost never direct causality in anything political, and there are counter examples to any inferred causality. However, since LBJ stated that X would happen as a result of Y, and X followed soon after Y, that view has to gain a certain credence (though technically, being a non-replicated chaotic system, it can always be wrong).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Roughly speaking, the Republican party formed on an anti-slavery, big government platform, because the slave owning southern states were fighting for states rights/property rights/small government (all of which were pro-slavery fig leaves), which were the Democratic principles. Now, the parties claim to have switched, as it is the Republicans who are states rights/property rights/small government, and the southern states switched parties when the Democrats embraced equality. In short, the racist element moved to Republican in the 60s, which is as close as we come to pro-slavery today.

So, yes, the Republican party was the progressive party in the 1800s, while the Democrats were the conservative party. The two switched sides over the 40s through the 60s, but one thing the Republicans have retained is favoring big government. It's a different flavor of big government, but government has grown faster under the R administrations than under the D administrations for the last three decades. The talking points are not in agreement with the actions taken.

---

The US History for Dummies mentions: :D

Today's Republicans are yesterday's Federalists. (That was the original name of Hamilton's party).

Today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans. (Jefferson's party was called the Democratic Republicans).

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but I have always felt that the mapping is due more to the fact that we had two parties and now have two parties rather than any continuity.

If you want another party you can have the BNP :D

No thanks, you can keep that one.