Your modern Republican Party:
(CNN) -- A suicide bomber walks into a bar. He shouts at the bartender, "Gimme the money, or I blow this place to bits!" The worried bartender hands him a wad of cash, and the bomber departs. The next day, the suicide bomber returns to the same bar. He shouts at the bartender, "Gimme the money, or I blow this place to bits!" "Are you nuts?" answers the bartender. "If I give you money every day, I'll go out of business. Plus, you're scaring away the customers." "I tell you what," replies the bomber, "Gimme the money, and I won't come back until the day after tomorrow."
Michael Wolraich: Welcome to the art of negotiation, Republican style. Since the election of 2010, the United States has narrowly averted three Republican-built suicide bombs: one government shutdown, one debt default and one fiscal cliff. We have two more scheduled for February: across-the-board spending cuts and another debt ceiling expiration. The Republicans' suicide strategy is a relatively new addition to American politics. Newt Gingrich pioneered the first government shutdown in 1995. It was so disastrous that no one tried it again for 16 years. In the meantime, Republicans pursued a more traditional method known as the democratic process. They campaigned for election and took control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. From 2001 to 2006, the dominant Republicans passed plenty of conservative legislation. (They did not, however, reduce spending or balance the budget.)
Fascists! Fascists and nazi, racist teapublicans everywhere!
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that maybe you start calling Republicans nihilists, but some of my best friends are nihilists.
ReplyDeleteHappy 2013 Shaw!
SF, that's a strange comment.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that over at your blog and on just about every conservative blog I've visited since President Obama was elected in 2008, conservatives have hurled that label at him.
Of course it's idiotic, since the American Socialist Party has said Mr. Obama is nothing like a socialist. But that never stops conservatives from labeling him thus.
Your comment appears to be very defensive.
If Mr. Obama is a socialist, so was Ronald Reagan.
It is all so very amusing. I mean, is anyone familiar with "the self filling prophesy?
ReplyDeleteJust had a lengthy heated discussion with my 80 year old father last night on this very subject. He thinks Obama is a Muslim socialist and not a "good"American.
Yours truly, perhaps the most despised Randian Objectivist in these here parts disagreed. I won the debate because;
1) He could not offer proof the President is in fact a Muslim.
2) I ask him to consider how it is Obama appointed wall street and corporate type individuals (Geitner and Immelt as examples) if he was indeed a socialist/communist. No response.
3) I pointed out that Obama may not be what he or I woruld find ideally acceptable but that does not make the President a "bad" American.
I also pointed out there is indeed pockets of racism still alive and thriving in America. He didn't ask me to leave.
What's in a name? A skunk by any other name would stink as foully.
ReplyDelete~ FT
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year to you as well, Kevin!
Good answers RN.
Conservatives who call Mr. Obama a socialist just don't know what a socialist is.
FT: What is that about???
RN,
ReplyDeletePrint that on your Obama bashing blog.
YOU claimed Obama was a Socialist on your blog.
Explain that?
FreeThinke - We have much in common. More than you might think. Objectivism requires more than ideology, although the left, whom Ayn Rand more closely and by self admission identified with might disagree. But then again it seems we live in a world of smoke and mirror, at least IMNHO.
ReplyDeleteLes,
ReplyDeleteIt goes to show, Obama Derangement Syndrome is all about belief over evidence and propaganda over facts.
Your father is not alone, an entire industry has shaped his beliefs.
Why do you think millions of Americans share his beliefs?
What is it about? Surely it's obvious, Ma'am.
ReplyDeletePut more bluntly one could call a toilet a tea pot, but it would still be a toilet.
Must I go on?
Please don't make me.
I was hoping to elicit from you a cyber smile at least, if not an actual chuckle.
Be of good cheer in this still-new year.
~ FT
No Shaw, I could call Obama a statist, one in a long line of them, and a more ardent one than most.
ReplyDeleteBut repubs have been statists as well, so I'll give you that.
Therefore, SF, since you and other conservatives/libertarians have acknowledged this, and since so many of what you call "statists" have been elected to public office, including the presidency, wouldn't that be an indication that the public that votes these people in to shape and lead this country do not have as large a problem as people like you and other con/libs have?
ReplyDeleteIn a representative democracy, we get the leader WE WANT.
You may argue that the people who vote these "statist" leaders are too dumb to know what they're doing?
Well, then what do you propose?
It's really easy for people to stand on the sidelines and carp about how this country is run, but in the end, we Americans have agreed to this representative democracy and to how it has evolved.
You and many others don't like it.
What do you propose to do to get people to come around to your way of thinking and changing the way this country is governed?
I need explain nothing to you Rrpublican Racism, it is as simple as that. If you wish to engage me you will need to visit RN USA. For future reference, I will not respond to you here or at any other site again. Other than as I specified.
ReplyDelete"In a representative democracy, we get the leader WE WANT"
ReplyDeleteActually we get the leader the party says we want, we have little choice.
The party, either dems or repugs decide who they want to run and that is the choice you have. Once they get elected they do whatever the party says to stay in office.
"...wouldn't that be an indication that the public that votes these people in to shape and lead this country do not have as large a problem as people like you and other con/libs have?
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, and I've said as much. I am on the outside and in a minority.
I have no proposals. I go to work and take care of my family, and that's about it.
skudrunner, people vote in primaries. In the old days, party bosses decided who would run for the presidency. Now we have primaries.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you and SF come up with a better way to run this country of 300+ million people? We are the third most populous country on the planet and that population is hugely diverse.
Do you really believe a smaller government is the answer to all our problems?
Do you and SF believe all power should rest with the states and that the federal government should be used only for defense?
Have you thought it through? To reality?
Nothing new there, you never explain yourself. You love the world of "everyone is wrong but me" without giving details. you never explain yourself to anyone, not just me. Sorry, your blog has been flagged as a hate blog. I don't visit those kind of blogs.
ReplyDeleteShaw et all: The following is a copy and paste of my comment on another site. It was in response to a blogger who is feeling quite down on America's future prospects. I thought you might find it of interest. If not Shaw simply delete.
ReplyDelete"Indeed the rEpublican party is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The architects of their own demise. Fighting for liberty requires more than just being obstinate and intransigent. It requires an honest assessment of reality based on objectivism and truth. There was a reason Ayn Rand had no use for rEpublicans or American conservatism in general, and she stated it clearly for those who have actually studied her beyond snippets from Atlas Shrugged.
I for one. while sharing a sense of lost opportunity will continue on Tim, in the only way I know how. In the spirit of Classical Liberalism and reasonable compromise. It is the example our founders ultimately set for their posterity.
Time progresses forward. Realities change. It is up to us to find a way to fuse our principles with the rest of society and affect change in a way that makes sense to the greatest number of people. That is, after all how our Republic is supposed to work. That is after all how this republic was formed."
For whatever it's worth...
"Why don't you and SF come up with a better way to run this country of 300+ million people?"
ReplyDeleteHerein lies the problem. The federal government is not supposed to be "running the country," it is supposed to be carrying out its constitutional duties as dictated to it in the constitution by the states and the people.
And yes, those things not mentioned in the constitution are the business of the states, municipalities and the people.
We are a diverse nation, and one size does not fit all.
Before you pound me some more, I am clear-eyed about this and realize I am reading from musty, outdated scrolls, and the progressive march will continue.
ReplyDeleteSF: "We are a diverse nation, and one size does not fit all."
One size in some instances has to and does "fit all."
For example, a mid-western state senator [I think it's Kansas, not sure] recently proposed legislation to have the lord's prayer recited in all the state's schools. In that case the Constitutions prohibition against favoring a religion will prevail--one size there fits all. Even if the majority in that state agrees with the proposed legislation, the minority has to be protected against the excesses of the majority. That legislation will not pass.
The tension between states rights and national uniformity will always be with us.
There are several states--conservative states--that are making it more and more difficult for girls and women to get abortions--I believe in some cases the clinics for this legal procedure have shut down completely. That forces economically poor girls and women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, despite the circumstances of that pregnancy, or even if that girl or woman's health is in danger.
That is state-forced pregnancies on girls and women--something that I'd expect from North Korea, not the United States of America.
SF: "Before you pound me some more, I am clear-eyed about this and realize I am reading from musty, outdated scrolls, and the progressive march will continue."
I don't wish to pound anyone on anything. I think we need to understand that as a culture we most certainly DO progress. And we should as we become better informed.
237 years ago, it was acceptable to own slaves and treat women and unpropertied men as second-class citizens, unable to vote for those who presumed to represent them.
Just a year ago, the president signed into law the repeal of DADT, a law that now allows homosexuals to serve their country--as they have all through our history--only now they don't have to lie about who they are.
We're seeing this progress with equality in marriage as well.
As we mature as a species, we see many of the prohibitions--which IMO were religion-based--against our fellow citizens, were unjust and unConstitutional.
That's a progressive march we can be proud of.
Believe it or not, I do not have a wholly uncharitable view of Progressivism:
ReplyDeleteWestern Hero - Saving Liberalism
Progressives won many battles that need to be won, but a government on permanent war footing is a fearsome thing.
Of course, we disagree, and in that same post, I level a lot of criticism, but I also acknowledge the need for government intervention at certain points in the life of the nation.
RN said,
ReplyDelete"Realities change."
Has the definition (reality) of deficit spending changed over the decades?
You have been supporting deficit spending (Republican policy - you have supported) for decades.
I guess now that the reality of what deficit spending can do to destroy a budget (is that effect new) you have changed your tune and now toss your party to the curb.
More like a rat leaving a sinking ship.
The constitution does not mention nuclear weapons. Does that mean we should leave the use and regulation of such weapons to the states and the people?
ReplyDeleteI know this is an extreme example, but not everything can be mentioned in the constitution. It requires interpretation and those interpretations change with time.
Again enjoying the unintended humor here at PE from the one that believes in stirring the pot for no other purpose but their own brand of self gratification. LMFAO!
ReplyDelete