Republican: the party of ignorance and greed?

reply to post by AgentC


I think everyone stopped taking you seriously when you said "Dumbocrats."

republicans are for rich people, everyone know this...



although i would vote for paul or kucinich

reply to post by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by newcovenant

 

That's all Reagan was. An actor, and so many Republican voters fell for it. Too bad he would absolutely despise what the Republicans today are doing.

He was like the original Manchurian candidate. I liked him. That doesn't mean he wasn't a political pawn, in fact that is why someone like Reagan is usable. Nice personal, powerful public speaker but not only do they have to present a good front and perform for the crowd, they have to stick with the program. It cannot be an independent thinker.

Democrats don't do that as much although admittedly no saints but if they were in lockstep as the GOP tries to be, Obama would not be "running wild" like he is. Beginning to think he is a republican plant anyway.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Did I say that I think Dem party holds all cards on morality and logic? No. I'm not blind to the game that plays out between these two false fronts. However, I do see that despite the many cries that both sides are the same... there is one side that constantly takes the platform of supporting corporations over people,

You mean like Solyntra?

of supporting war over peace,

You mean like bombing the crap outta Libya?

of take a stand of judgement and inequality over the equality and benefit of our fellow man.

You mean like the current "eat the rich" schema?

There is an inability among republican thinkers to see reality...

It's only on the part of the Republicans though, right?

and to even face their own weaknesses. At best they can only point the finger back... That is the absolute limit of their ability to take responsibility; is to only point the finger back.

You mean like the "blame Bush for whatever happens NOW" bandwagon? THAT sort of finger pointing, denial, and inability to take responsibility?

Seriously, I'm just looking for some clarification of your concept. So far, you've been long on vague accusations, and short on specific examples, facts, or evidence of any sort to back those accusations and demonstrate some sort of difference in the way the two parties do business.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
From the denials of global warming and man's impact on the environment, to their constant loyalty toward corporations and support for war in oil rich nations, blind nationalism, hatred and distrust of outsiders, while always saving judgement and cynicism for the poor, the needy, the sick, the peace loving, and environmentally conscious. Does the mainstream republican base rely solely on a mixture of ignorance and greed?

There is something extremely disturbing about this hive mentality. In fact if you notice in debates and other discussions... republicans who do not embrace the hive mentality are shunned from the group.

I don't understand how any free-thinking, socially conscious person can embrace this twisted mentality? In order to support today's Republican party must a person also embrace Ignorance and/or Greed?

Switch out the word republican with democrat and it is all the same. Try going against the democrate party line and see where you end up.

I think the rich have to belong to a party and yes, it is the GOP.

Democrats have their issues, many of them but (other than a few isolated cases of personal greed) representing the fortunes of the rich is not one of them.

I am not talking about NEW MONEY. Money so old it predates Christ by many thousands of years.

There are STILL (those relatively few) families that know if they reveal their Royal Heritage they will be hounded and hung as the bourgeois. Now they call themselves the "Heritage Foundation" and other groups with heritage in the name.

And they think they are divinely appointed because they were.

Obama is flubbing so much even liberals are trying to pawn him off as a Republican. Lol that is one of the most hilarious things I've seen on this site.

reply to post by newcovenant

I think the rich have to belong to a party and yes, it is the GOP.

Wow, I didn't know Ted Turner was GOP. Jane Fonda? Warren Buffet? George Soros? Bill Gates? The owners of Google?

A review of Internal Revenue Service data conducted by Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at Heritage — a conservative think-tank — found that Democrats control the majority of the country's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions, and that more than half of the most affluent households are located in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

www.foxnews.com...


Look, I know you would like to believe the class warfare being waged currently by the Obama admin, but the truth is that the controlling elite is on both sides of the aisle, and many of them are Globalists with no true affiliations or sense of national sovereignty.

I am not talking about NEW MONEY. Money so old it predates Christ by many thousands of years.

The GOP has money from pre-Christ? Could you explain that to me?

We have the 2 party system because it's easier for Fortune 500 companies to buy out 2 different politicians. Then they all sit back and watch us scurry around like cockroaches

Originally posted by cornucopia
republicans are for rich people, everyone know this...



although i would vote for paul

or kucinich

Really? where is my fortune?

The Republican party was for a long time in the history of this nation THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE...

It was the Republicans, under a Republican president, alongside with the slaves, who put an end to slavery...

All of you who claim democrats are new money need to learn your history more... Democrats were slave owners and the mayority were not only rich but plantation owners. At least in the south...

1860 presidential election

The divisions became fully exposed with the 1860 presidential election. The electorate split four ways. The Southern Democrats endorsed slavery, while the Republicans denounced it. The Northern Democrats said democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally. The Constitutional Union Party said the survival of the Union was at stake and everything else should be compromised.

Lincoln, the Republican, won with a plurality of popular votes and a majority of electoral votes. Lincoln, however, did not appear on the ballots of ten southern states: thus his election necessarily split the nation along sectional lines. Many slave owners in the South feared that the real intent of the Republicans was the abolition of slavery in states where it already existed, and that the sudden emancipation of four million slaves would be problematic for the slave owners and for the economy that drew its greatest profits from the labor of people who were not paid.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

One of the greatest and real conspiracies of this nation is that those who have wanted for a long time to destroy the Republic had to get rid of the real party of the people.

You destroy a nation from within.

BTW, in case you guys haven't noticed the following is part of the reason why the Republic of the United States is NOT a Democracy...

The Northern Democrats said democracy required the people to decide on slavery locally. The Constitutional Union Party said the survival of the Union was at stake and everything else should be compromised.

en.wikipedia.org...

In a "Democracy" the mayority can take away the rights of the minorities, and that is not what this nation is about.

Or worse yet, those in power can CLAIM to represent a mayority and can take away many rights and freedoms.

Dear OP,

upon review, I found that you have not replied to my most sincere invitation for exchange on the socio-economical and socio-political import of the two predominant affiliations of our time outlined in this post. As daunting as the number of replies to your thread may be, I hereby repeat my solicitation of your reply.

Most Respectfully Yours.

Originally posted by macman
Seems to be a correlation in time revolving teachers unions for one.

I am not sure what that sentence is suppose to mean at all.

Then control was removed from the State/Local level and placed at the federal level.

That sounds like a fun talking point and I am sure there is some truth to it but it is so oversimplified as to not even resemble reality. How about a timeline showing the correlation between transfer of control and loss in performance? See, I need actual facts to go with the stuff people say at me.

And lets not forget "No child left behind".

How about you try to not forget it?

Originally posted by FallenWun
What has the other party been up to?
Firing teachers.
Cutting funding for schools and related after school programs.
Trying to insert imaginary friends into Science books.
No Child Left Behind.
Tell me the problem is too much money so we can really discuss ignorance.

Cuz I already brought it up.

Anyone who can defend the Republican (or Democratic) Party really should be laughed off of ATS.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by FallenWun

Military spending, health care costs, energy costs have nothing to do with why our schools are failing.

Didn't say they had anything to do with it. Health care is out of control, and that is because we already have a socialized system run by the insurance companies, and I think the government would be even worse if we went full Obama care.

That is exactly what you said right here.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
And as our government continues to grow who pays for it all? The "system" is way too large and out of control. Most of the money going into the education system doesn't go to the teachers or is directly focused on students as example. The Democrats say they want to help the poor etc but all they do is continue to build a bigger and bigger government.

The government, the system, is too big and too costly you said. Unfortunately the vast majority of what that "system" does and pays for has little to do with education.

My kid had pink eye on a holiday and the only place I thought I could take him was the emergency room to get things started on a three day weekend. I dreaded that with a 1000 dollar bill waiting to happen and a 6 to 10 hour wait. Then a friend told me about a clinic that work on cash only, outside the insurance umbrella. I took my kid there, paid 20 bucks, saw a practitioner within 10 mins, and was on my way to get the meds needed.

Our medical cost is out of control because the insurance companies can charge you 100 bucks for an aspirin and you can't do crap about it. It is not a lack of insurance, I travel all over the world and I have no problems paying cash for medical care. A free market would lower the cost AND limit the need for insurance in many cases. Plastic surgeons are a good example of one group where the cost is based by what people are willing to pay for the service in a competitive environment. Take out the Government and take out the insurance companies and we would see huge reductions in health care cost.

Gosh that is some argument for education and against ignorance. If you understood my post I pointed out that healthcare costs had nothing to do with education. You agree with me and then ramble on about healthcare costs?

No, I meant the money doesn't go directly to the student education process nor the teachers.

You said the money was focused on individual students. Did you not mean that?

When I was a kid all the administration were teachers and taught at least part time, even the school's principal. Over head was what was needed and nothing more, but today we see a vast army of "administration" that do not teach, but make 2 to 3 times a teacher salary. This is where our school monies go and why they are mostly failing. Books are cheaper and so are supplies, fundamentals of teaching have not changed other than adding computers in the mix, which are 5 times or more cheaper than they were when they first entered the school system. SO, teaching is actually cheaper today then 20 years ago if we didn't have such a waste in overhead.

I am not sure I ever argued with that. I just asked what you meant about focusing on individual students. Apparently you meant the opposite?

You are rude BTW....

Because I am pointing out you have replied to me twice now to write paragraphs about unrelated, off topic things, and then aimed them at me as if I were supposed to then care about them in the context of what I was already discussing? Is that a team tactic in this thread? You want to go on about health care costs I am sure there is a thread for that.

The topic talks is about Republican's greed and we just lived through a point where the Democrats controlled the white house and the majority of Congress until the last election that took many of them out.

Are you talking about the period of time when the Republicans SHATTERED the record for filibusters? I am curious if anyone on the right understands how a non filibuster proof majority works against record numbers of filibusters.

In that limited amount of time we saw the Dems reach a level of greed, spending and wasting like no other time in history. In comparison Bush might have robbed a liquor store, but Obama just rob fort Knox. I find it funny the OP focuses on the Republicans when we have just witness and are living in the fleecing of America by the Democrats.

Now you are just making things up. Obama has a long way to go still to do the financial damage to the country Bush did and that can be reflected easily in real numbers. Seen any of them?

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by inforeal

 

Yeah, socialist Utopia here I come.

Sorry, but again, I work to provide for me and mine. Not you and yours.
My work gets translated into a paycheck, which in turn provides for my family. And that is the way it was designed and supposed to be.

Not work getting translated into a paycheck, where I get a portion to provide for my family and to be given away to others by force, to people that I don't get to choose.

That is theft by any other definition. Except when used in the realm of phony Govt instituted welfare.

And we are already at the dangerous and unstable, with what 60 years of our structure going down the path of Socialism.
It seems to have gotten even worse over the past several years. Wonder why??

edit on 25-9-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Why do people like you remain in this horrible country you hate so much? Part of the deal in living in this society is shared responsibility. If you feel you do not need it and do not want to pay for it, why are you not in Antarctica taking care of yourself without any help from anyone?

This is a real question. I have yet to receive anything resembling a real answer.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by macman

 

they think spelling and grammar denotes intelligence and just look at all those harvard and yale graduates running this country dotting their i's crossing there t-s you know like that one dude who couldnt even say corpsman etc and a myraid of other examples,

Well you completely missed the point, again. You go on to bash higher education though all while crying the right does not embrace ignorance. Here you are picking on someone saying something incorrectly when you cannot write one correct English sentence. How do you not get this?

who have run this country to the ground but no no good ats poster spelling is more important.

When you are trying to proclaim your are not the party of ignorance, it helps a ton to not look ignorant while you do it. I really hope you are intelligent enough to understand that. I believe you are.

i was tired last nite should went to bed that poster reminds me too much of kitlani

edit on 25-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

You keep saying that. Funny how it is almost impossible to tell the difference between you, thirdeyeofhorus, beezzer, and macman.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by neo96

 

Yep.

The intellectuals have seemed to stampede us to the cliffs edge.

And there we have it folks. You think having a brain and using it is an insult and something "other" people do and those people are bad people. Tell me you do not embrace ignorance after a statement like that?
You really hate them educated thinkers don't ya?

I have always been severely unimpressed with graduates from the top schools of higher learning.
Except MIT and Cal, almost 99% of those that attend the mentioned have proven that they can complete courses, to get a piece of paper with their name on it. All for $90-$150k.

PROOF THE OP WAS CORRECT RIGHT THERE.

You bash higher education and being intellectual. That is exactly what the OP said.

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by macman

 

not really just looking at stuff like this and see how it correlated to the thread topic

Nice

Where is the area to put things like racist, war mongering and profiteering?

War mongering and profiteering is far from a Republican only problem....

Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer.... Democratic war mongering and profiteering happens to friend...

www.alternet.org...

The ignorance being displayed here by both sides saddens me.

Wake up smell the bull#, Washington is a big scam where the few get rich of the many.

You think liberals care more about you than their own status you are crazy. Republican and democrat is nothing but a circus for public consumption.

These people are ALL SCREWING US. There is no good side or bad side no black side or white side, the side anyone in Washington is on is the GREEN side.

Until everyone posting dribble from both parties book of taglines realizes this we are doomed. And everyone throwing out the talking points is perpetuating the ignorance.

Good job

I do hope you realize I was being sarcastic, right?