22
   

What is the Republican vision for this country?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 05:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I don't suppose that any of the Democrat politicians really want a permanent underclass, but they do want permanent power and establishing and growing a class of dependent inhabitants (it doesn't matter if they are citizens or not, they have plans to work out that wrinkle) of this country is a a great strategy for achieving their goal.


This is merely conservative polemic--it is propaganda, which Finn cannot substantiate on any but a polemical, anecdotal basis.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 05:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

I don't believe that the vast majority of ordinary citizens who self-identify as Democrats wish for a permanent underclass. In fact, I'm sure they don't.

As I must admint, I don't believe the vast majority of Republicans have no concern for those who struggle.

I don't suppose that any of the Democrat politicians really want a permanent underclass, but they do want permanent power and establishing and growing a class of dependent inhabitants (it doesn't matter if they are citizens or not, they have plans to work out that wrinkle) of this country is a a great strategy for achieving their goal.


I imagine there are may politicians of both parties that strive to maintain power. It's a natural outcome. I doubt many of them have in mind to create a dependent class.

My problem with most Democrat citizens is that they are, at best naive and gullible, and at worst more concerned with maintaining a sanctimonious self-image than actually helping people rise above misfortune and achieve self-reliance.

Sanctimonious? Again there probably those like that. I'm not one. I contribute as much as I can, financially and physically.


The War on Poverty was declared at the same time as the programs under the umbrella of The Great Society were set in motion. Some 50 years, and billions, if not trillions of dollars later, poverty remains with it's eradication no where in sight.

We have a lot to learn about helping people out of poverty. Some countries have done a much better job. No doubt we waste a lot of money, I would agree. But we can't just give up. What did Jesus say about the least among us?


I doubt the Liberal Establishment set out to create a permanent underclass that would always vote for Democrats, but somewhere along the line they realized what they had set in motion and how they could exploit it to their personal ends.

I am sorry you believe this. There are politicians that are exploitative of both parties. I doubt one side has an advantage.


With so much invested in their self-image of enlightened social responsibility I don't expect very many Democrat citizens to realize, let alone admit that they have been duped.

I don't post these "diatribes" with any expectation that they will change the minds of anyone in this forum. I suppose that a small number of people may have come to A2k with a capability of having their opinions influence, but if they did, they soon fled.

That's the problem with both of us. Too much energy trying to influence the other and not enough in productive discussion.

All of the regulars have their minds made up, which is perfectly fine by me since I'm not seeking to change them. As a result, I don't really care much when folks like you (no offense intended) and FreeDuck tell me I am off the mark, tilting at straw men, or simply full of it.

You can scold me or anyone else in this forum for adversarial attitudes but, without them, these forums would be limited to the exchange of recipes, and silly word games. There is certainly an A2K "community" that enjoys using the forum for trading puns and quips, congratulating and commiserating with each other, and even engaging in the occasional political circle jerk, but what keeps a large number of members coming back are the adversarial posts of folks like me. If only two or three conservative members depart without being replaced, it won't be long before three to four times that number of liberal members depart as well, and you might be one.

I'm not going to leave because someone disagreed with me. Are you saying you are only trying to be entertaining? That's what many folks say about a fellow on the radio when he says something completely untrue and hurtful. "Oh, he's just an entertainer."

All of this is to say, climb down off your high horse and don't try to substitute fluff that you think demonstrates your superiority with trying to pick apart what I have written.


I don't feel superior at all. In fact I hold your knowledge and ability with words in high regard. I just don't agree with the message. We all fall into the trap of demonizing the other side. Who does that make feel superior? In doing that we close off all possibility of any meaningful discourse. Admit that there may be some truth in the middle?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 06:12 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
This is merely conservative polemic--it is propaganda, which Finn cannot substantiate on any but a polemical, anecdotal basis.

I believe this is quite generally true of the Republican vision for this country---which is what FreeDuck has asked about.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 06:18 pm
Ooops. I didn't realize that Beth was still logged-in. I wrote that post.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 06:18 pm
@Thomas,
Do parties have platforms in the US?

If so, I am wondering what the Republican platform has to say about the party's vision?
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 06:20 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Ooops. I didn't realize that Beth was still logged-in. I wrote that post.


Here's a vision....two puters to every household!
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 06:21 pm
@dlowan,
I have my own computer, but it's not in use. In any event, there is only one DSL modem.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 06:24 pm
You can read the 2008 Republican platform by clicking here. When they will have selected a candidate, they will write a new one.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:01 pm
@Setanta,
About 60% of the budget goes for the military when everything to do with the military is included.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:12 pm
@RABEL222,
It's appalling the contracts military procuement writes. If the government sues a contractor, win or lose, the government pays the legal costs. When the government wins a judgment against a contractor, all kinds of expenditures are not recoverable. Overtime to hourly emplyees is not recoverable, invoice payments to subcontractors is not recoverable, bonuses to management--even if it can be shown to have been paid directly from government invoice payments--are not recoverable. Small wonder Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex--it's the greatest scam corporate America has ever run.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:20 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Do parties have platforms in the US?

They have platforms for every presidential election. I don't think they have adopted one for 2012 yet, because I believe this happens at the convention in August. But for what it's worth, here is their platform for 2008.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:34 pm
@Thomas,
Ah, I see Setanta has beat me to it. Additionally, I'd say the 2012 budget passed by the Republican-governed House (PDF) reflects the Republican vision for the US. I don't want to poison you too much before you read it yourself. That being said, I invite you to pay attention to the relation between the taxes they want to cut, the deficit they want to reduce, and the spending they want (*) to cut . The comparison will give you a good sense of the Republican party's policy goals, as well as the intellectual quality at work in it.
_______
(*) NOT!
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:47 pm
@Thomas,
I think I have all that from general reading.

I just wondered if they had anything else on their minds?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 07:55 pm

As I see it, the GOP position
is to approach laissez faire capitalism, for its freedom & prosperity, as possible.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 08:01 pm
@dlowan,
It is useful to keep in mind that the party is currently in thrall to the tea bagger lunatic fringe--they did modestly well in the mid-term election, and now even those candidates who would not necessarily have as extreme views as the tea baggers pay them court. The Republican establishment is not, i believe, comfortable with this state of affairs. I even suspect that many powers that be in the state parties would be relieved to see tea bagger candidates do poorly in the 2012 election. Of course, they want to win, but i think they're less than enchanted with the power the tea baggers currently wield. A good deal of their obstructionism is a result of tea bagger intransigence. Ordinarily, both parties recognize the requirements of pragmatic politics in governence--having fulminated against their vile opponents, they get to Washington and get down to the business of negotiation and compromise which gets each side some of what they want. The tea baggers won't stand for that. They have become in the incubus of the party.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 08:06 pm
@Setanta,
Yep.....that makes sense. Happened in Oz with the awful Pauline Hanson. I'm concerned it's happening with a lunatic called Bob Katter. If they gain control of a few key seats they can have influence way beyond their numbers.

Mind you, I do think Hanson enabled some of the true views of some members of our last conservative government to be acted upon.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 09:38 pm
@Setanta,
Found some great 100+ year-old political cartoons from Harper's Weekly while browsing the other day. Same fussin', fightin' and feudin' going on back then lol. Think it'll ever end?

That's a brick in his hand! Thwap!
http://elections.harpweek.com/1912/cartoons/0309120007d5w.jpg
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 10:18 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:

... their priorities appear to be preventing women from getting reproductive health care...


I hear that a lot and it's 95% paranoia and the other 5% I'd rather work around than deal with demoKKKrat problems.

In other words, what I hear from those who don't know any better often sounds like:

Quote:
God DAMN!!!! Them crazy ******* Republicans are gonna force me to have five kids!!!!!


My reply: For what the demoKKKrats are going to COST you, you could AFFORD five kids!!!!!





gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 10:21 pm
That's aside from the fact that what that one asshole woman was talking about was $10 a month worth of pills from Walmart which she was gonna just die if she couldn't get Uncle Sam to pay for. I mean, who the hell does she expect to take that seriously?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:17 pm
@gungasnake,
That's completely wrong. The data has been posted to show that's completely wrong.

Not that you care about evidence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 10:12:55