The naked evil of that scourge called the Republican Party

Buffalo Roam you have such a quaint talent for ignoring fact when it interfers with your view of the world. We have been through this many times before. Dems have been more fiscally conservative and tried to reign in Republican excesses over the course of the last two decades...but that does not stop you from reinventing history.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's hilarious to hear Republicans carrying on about the awful dangers of deficit spending, as if nobody is going to remember that they spent the previous 8 years piling up gargantuan deficits to pay for tax cuts for the rich and wars of choice. And now that we're facing total meltdown, as a consequence of their policies, and deficit spending is actually called for to avert crisis, we're to believe that this is some bolt-from-the-blue Democrat program to destroy spend money for no reason whatsoever.

Or rather, it would be hilarious, if it weren't so insulting.

And as far as the two party system goes: it's true that we'll have two parties for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't imply that it will necessarily be these two parties. Just ask the Whigs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

- The single greatest president the United States ever had. He was a Republican.

If ANY of us had any real American wherewithal we wouldn't be in the shape we are presently in. It makes me LAUGH at how people sit around in their armchairs intellectualizing and blaming parties when in reality they need look no further than the nearest mirror to directly face the most guilty party of all.

Abraham Lincoln also had this to say and I HOPE we as a people can understand it's undeniability before it's too late. If it's not already.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Wake up! They have us right where they want us.

Will you be led around by a ring in your nose until you can be no more?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also the first Republican president. There's a reason it's called the Party of Lincoln.

You'd think that Republicans would be playing up the Lincoln angle, rather than the Reagan one, given that they just saw Reagan Republicanism reputed decisively, and Obama elected. But then, perhaps it would only serve to point out the sad fact that they sold out that legacy 40 years ago, and now are a reactionary party of old confederacy states.

IIRC, he said that shortly before launching a brutal war against a huge portion of the United States, which so happened to be strongly aligned with the rival party. So perhaps this is not exactly the most appropriate image for invoking post-partisanship...

 

Quad not to be an ass but johnny reb fired the first shots. You could make the argument that Lincoln was defending US interests.

 

Lincoln more than attempted to actuate an eloquent solution as a diplomat within his own country, the above quote was a direct, truthful and logical justification for his actions, not an excuse or a political ploy.

"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

I would certainly maintain that Lincoln's ends justified the means.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

This is where we are at precisely. Is there ANY denying that?

When is the last time the United States was in fact a democracy in which the politicians in office were a REAL representation of it's citizenry?

People are right to be angry, but they REALLY need to understand what it is they are angry about.

 

Gargantuan? Obama is going to redefine that term.

 

Really? when was the last time they voted against spending money on:

Social Programs?

The War?

The only time they cut any real money from the budget is when they hit the Military, and the Veterans.

Then they have no problem taking real money off the Table, which is curious, because that is one of the Constitutional Responsibilities, Defense of the Country.

Social Security isn't in the Constitution, and see what a mess that is in.

Medicare isn't in the Constitution, and see what a mess that is in.

Medicaid, isn't in the Constitution, and see what a mess that is in.

Welfare isn't in the Constitution, and see what a mess that is in.

Yes:

A paper written by Congressman Randy Forbes in April of 2008, "The Challenge of Giant Entitlements", states that "Entitlement spending, or government spending that takes place automatically every year without any action from Congress, is currently 62 percent of our overall federal spending."

[DOC]Budget/Entitlement Spending
Entitlement spending, or government spending that takes place ... without any action from Congress, is currently 62 percent of our overall federal spending. ...

www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/ca_040708_forbesentitleme... - Similar pages

"Entitlement spending"

Democrats pet legislation,

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

62% of the Budget and growing, with no legislative action, and under the Obama, guess what?,

GW last budget was $2.6 trillion, well the proposed Obama budget is going to be $3.55trillion, dollars, $95 billion more dollars than this years budget, which is the Last GWB budget passed, and that doesn't Count the $800 billion dollar bail out, which in servicing that will cost $3 Trillion Dollars paid for by our children and Grand Children, and by the summer, the Obama want to add another $$400 billion at a minimum, in more stimulus packages.

The Obama and the Democrats are blowing the doors off the Republican spending and they aren't even 2 months in to the new era of Big Spending Democratic Programs.

What is the cost of Universal Health care going to run? Every projection by the Government on cost, ends up being at a minimum 400% low, every social program enacted has always cost 4+ the projected cost, at a minimum.

Name one social program that has come in at projected cost?

I didn't support the Repubs on their try to out Democrat a Democrat, so why should I support the Democrats when that are spending 3 times as much as the Repubs did?

 

bullshit you have supported everything the neo cons have been doing( which isn't trying to out dem the dems. If they truely were trying to do this we would have never been in the mess we currently are in.) also for a reason why you should support the dems spending at least the have a realistic idea of how to pay for it.

 

Need I remind you that your retirement is part of those entitlement programs that you complain about? If you take Social Security, that is another entitlement that you are complaining about.

And the Medicare Prescription Drug program was a trillion dollar plus expansion of the entitlement system...invented by the Republcians to protect their financial backers...big pharma.

 

My retirement as set by the enlistment contract I signed with the U.S. Government for 20 years of services rendered, 24/7/365, not just given to me.

ps: The military is Constitutionally Mandated, Social Security, and Welfare is Not.

And the Social Security is from money taken from me by the government, with the claim that they are holding it for me, so I am only getting my own money back, right? :roflmao:

I could have invested that money for my self, and even with the down turn, have had more money to live on.

And for all the Propaganda, that money isn't held for me, and for all the increases in SS taxes by the Democrats and Repubs, it is still going broke.

And it was passed in 2007 by the Democrats, remember they controled both Houses of Congress then.

Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
On January 12, 2007, the House passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 (H.R. 4). The bill requires the federal government (specifically the Department of Health and Human Services) to negotiate with drug companies over the price of drugs for Medicare participants. The legislation strikes a clause in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 known as the "noninterference provision," which prohibits the secretary of HHS from participating in negotiations between drug manufacturers and insurers that sponsor Medicare plans.

 

Regardless of your claims to your entitlements, they are never the less entitlements and included in the entitlement numbers the limbaughites like to throw around. And those entitlements are very generous.

As for Social Security, you are getting far more of of the program than you put into the program...far far more. So you are reaping a huge gain. Let me get back to my aunt, she with employer contributions never contributed more than two thousand dollars to the program...but collects 1 thousand dollars a month in pension benefits alone....not even mentioning the medicare benefits.
And every year the benefit amount is adjusted for inflation. So you are reaping huge benefits.

I have worked most of my life in private industry. When I started with this company decades ago they offered full retiree medical insurance. They terminated that offering after decades of service. That has not happened to you either.

As for working 24/7/365 it is obvious you have not had a private industry management position...because that is exactly what happens in private industry. Managers are expected, and rightly so, to do what is necessary to get the job done. So 24/7/365 is not unique to the military.

 

Bit of a mouthfull, that.

 

Wrong. Social Security is and always has been set up as a transfer payment - welfare. Your money is not "held", but paid out immediately. That has always been true.

False. The Dems had only 49 votes in the Senate, same as the Reps. With the VP a Rep, the Dems needed to pick up two votes for anything, and eleven votes for anything major (the Reps had already started their famous filibuster canpaign).

Furthermore, the Dems did not and do not vote as a bloc. The Reps do, as unlike the Dems they have purged the ideologically impure and the rhetorically inconvenient from their ranks, and only loyalists remain.

 

True, although it's also true that the powers-that-be have always been happy to let people think of SS as some kind of government-mandated retirement savings plan. People with no ostensible political agenda routinely talk about "getting their money back out," and so on. Once my brother even tried to tell me that I was wrong to tell him that it's otherwise, as it's also true that banks do not literally hold on to the actual money you deposit into savings accounts.

Eventually I managed to convince him that our grandmother's monthly food and medical bills are not bank assets that can be sold to cover withdrawls, and he relented. But it took some doing, and he's smart and doesn't have a dog in the political race.

All of which is to suggest that the convenient lie about SS being a savings plan has some political heft to it - the suspicion is that people, in general, might not be terribly supportive of it if they understood it to be what it is (welfare for the elderly). Or, at the minimum, that they view welfare for the aged as something the aged need to earn through years of contributions to the system. Which is perhaps not so crazy, but still seems wide of the mark to me: SS is worth it because leaving the elderly to be supported directly by their offspring is a drag.

 

Why I can not stand the republican party!

The republican party to me, is at this point in time a completely souless and evil organization.
The hypocrisy that surrounds this party is absolutely disgusting, and it does not just have to do with it criticisms of Obama. IT has to do with the very message and support base of the party.

Its main support base is a group of southerners that are still angry about the fact that black people managed to become treated like human beings and got the full rights accorded towards citizens of a democracy. After Lyndon Johnson decided to sign in all the civil rights bills, and mandated that they be given rights, these virulent racists in 1964 voted for Barry Goldwater after nearly a century of the Solid South.

How such a party still be considered a respectful institution?

Its message to the pour southern (male) whites is that they'll try and stop all progress and social welfare programs, just so to make sure that blacks cannot possubly improve themselves.

They claim to be the party of the "real American" but they are only looking out for the wealthiest of all Americans.

It is a truly despicable organization!

 

Well I have to agree with you. I think Lincoln would be very disappointed in his party, for that matter, I think Reagan would be very disappointed in where the party has gone.

I left the party when they let abandoned their morals and sold their souls to the highest bidders....when George the 1st took office. It is sad to see it come to this...indeed it is a very sad day.

 

Lincoln, in his time, was a proud liberal. This was true of most members of the Republican party, especially the radicals. The Democratic party was the conservative party back then. Between Wilson and Kennedy, they steadily switched sides.

Lincoln would be incensed by scope and size of modern government, probably dismayed at the equal-ish treatment of women, and appalled at our [generally speaking] acceptance of gay people. Nothing he believed then should have any bearing on what we do now, except in so far as it is important in understanding what he did for his country in his time, how he compared to his contemporaries and how all of that contributes to who we are now.

~String

 

Agreed, a man or a woman must be viewed in the context of their time. And there is much they would not approve based on society as they knew it...including gay rights and women sufferage.

Lincoln fought for a united Union. His party today is dividing the union...kind of ironic.