Thread: The GOP in Meltdown

Originally Posted by raycarey

first of all, learn how to use the quote function.

secondly, either answer address the points or move on.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Justify your racism.

laughable.

Yes, take your own advice and address your subtle racism which I pointed out to you.

Originally Posted by ray

laughable.

You're in denial

Originally Posted by Milkman

Then Limbaugh chose to publicly respond. I don't see the point.

he's addicted to the attention....along with illegally obtained prescription medication...and donuts.

Originally Posted by Bugs

For decades the poor have been voting for the blue team - and guess what. Most of them are still poor.

you're joking, right? because this claim is absurd in so many different ways.

quick question: have the poor who live in southern and midwestern states seen their economic situation improve by voting for republicans?

jesus, just look at the 2004 electoral map and then a recent report from the CDC on poverty.






http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/o...07_0091_05.gif

http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/...ral-2004-s.jpg

Originally Posted by Bugs

I think there is some kind of saying out there about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

kind of like a poster continually claiming to be an 'independent' despite the fact that his highly partisan ideology is present in nearly all of his posts.

Originally Posted by raycarey

you're joking, right? because this claim is absurd in so many different ways.

If there is any joke in there it is really that many of the poor don’t bother to vote.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Bugs

I think there is some kind of saying out there about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

kind of like a poster continually claiming to be an 'independent' despite the fact that his highly partisan ideology is present in nearly all of his posts.

As for being independent, outside of the point that I don't feel that I continually claim to be 'independent', there is no doubt that many of my ideologies align much more with what many view as red team ideologies, but many of them do not.

Prime examples of where they don’t line up is religion, abortion, stem-cell research, amongst others.

And truth be told the many of what I consider to be the most important issues have been handled poorly by all sides - small taxes – small government, and individual protection under the second amendment.

Some might say I'm a libertarian constitutionalist – but I don’t think that label really fits quite right either.

Originally Posted by Bugs

many of the poor don’t bother to vote.

that's interesting, because less than two hours ago, you declared that they voted for democrats....

Originally Posted by Bugs

For decades the poor have been voting for the blue team - and guess what. Most of them are still poor.

btw, you neglected to comment on the electoral and CDC maps.

The second map indicates that sparsely populated regions and Indian reservations are areas of extreme poverty. I'm not surprised. Families in rural areas tend to be larger and there is minimal choice in the types of work available. One of the reasons it stays rural is because people leave to find better work.

The demographics of the USA are really quite fascinating to the interested outsider. I'll leave it to others to debate the reasons, but the staunchly Republican states tend to be the most obese states, support the largest Black population by percentage, and have the highest rates of poverty. For states with a large Latino population, the picture is mixed however- CA is Democrat, Fla a swing state, TX staunchly Republican.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Bugs

many of the poor don’t bother to vote.

that's interesting, because less than two hours ago, you declared that they voted for democrats....

Nice cutting of what I said to alter the meaning to fit your warped mind. My first post indicated that poor folks vote for the blue team, and yet they still remain poor. The second post indicated that if there was any level of humor in the earlier comment it was that many poor folks tend not to vote. These two comments can be valid without contradicting each other.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Bugs

For decades the poor have been voting for the blue team - and guess what. Most of them are still poor.

btw, you neglected to comment on the electoral and CDC maps.

Well I didn't comment on the maps because IMHO they don't show the real picture. The states that have the highest levels of poverty might tend to swing towards the red team. But the actual folks who are in poverty tend to swing towards the blue team. Using data from the same election/time frame your map links are based upon, one can easily see that Kerry got the majority of the poor vote. Bush did not swing into the majority until well after the avergage income was way above the poverty line.

CNN.com Election 2004


Something else that I find kind of funny about blue team supporters is that unions tend to push for thier members to vote for the blue team. And by and large union members tend to vote lock-step with what the union has told them - and hence vote for the blue team. But it has been decades since the blue team has done fuck all to aid the unions in any substantial way. Seems they might yet be another group of folks who have been voting the same way for decades, expecting a certain result, not getting it, and yet continuing to vote in the same way?

Originally Posted by sabang

The demographics of the USA are really quite fascinating to the interested outsider. I'll leave it to others to debate the reasons, but the staunchly Republican states tend to be the most obese states, support the largest Black population by percentage, and have the highest rates of poverty. For states with a large Latino population, the picture is mixed however- CA is Democrat, Fla a swing state, TX staunchly Republican.

With a few exceptions minority populations tend to vote for the blue team. Something the red team has given lip service to improving upon for many years, but has yet to really do much about.

I don't think obesity play much of a roll in how folks vote. I know plenty of fat folks in the US that vote for both parties.

Until this past election both black and latino population have not had a very good track record when it comes to actually voting. Many areas with high concentrations of black or latino voters also have high poverty rates. IMHO the low voter turn out tends to be more related to poverty levels than race - poorer folks are the less likely they are to vote.

One thing that can swing latino voters towards the red team is religion. Some of the latinos are as batty about religion as some of the red team nutters are.

Originally Posted by Bugs

Until this past election both black and latino population have not had a very good track record when it comes to actually voting

Interestingly, it seems a shared characteristic of all Democracies- the lower socio-economic strata of society, who arguably stand to benefit the most from mobilising their vote are in fact the least likely to do so. I think the syndrome is not racial, as such.

This from a former republican

"You Republicans are the arsonists who burned down our national home. You combined the failed ideologies of the Religious Right, so-called free market deregulation and the Neoconservative love of war to light a fire that has consumed America. Now you have the nerve to criticize the "architect" America just hired -- President Obama -- to rebuild from the ashes. You do nothing constructive, just try to hinder the one person willing and able to fix the mess you created.

I used to be one of you. As recently as 2000 I worked to get Senator McCain elected in that year's primary. (McCain and Gen. Tommy Franks wrote glowing endorsements regarding my book about military service, AWOL.). I have a file of handwritten thank you notes from Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II. In the 1970s and early 80s I hung out with Jack Kemp and bought into his "supply side" myth and even wrote a book he endorsed pushing his ideas.

In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God). They wanted America to fail in order to prove they were right about America's "moral decline." Soon after McCain lost in 2000 I re-registered as an independent in disgust with W. Bush. But I still respected many Republicans. Not today.

How can anyone who loves our country support the Republicans now? Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan defined the modern conservatism that used to be what the Republican Party I belonged to was about. Today no actual conservative can be a Republican. Reagan would despise today's wholly negative Republican Party. And can you picture the gentlemanly and always polite Ronald Reagan, endorsing a radio hate-jock slob who crudely mocked a man with Parkinson's and who now says he wants an American president to fail?!"

Full article- Frank Schaeffer: Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (From a Former Republican)

While the Limbaugh crowd are making a lot of noise, they are clearly alienating many of their own.

"Today no actual conservative can be a Republican." Interesting comment.

Well, let's look at GOP newbie IL Congressman Aaron Schock. He set up an IRA when he was 14 (hey, he wanted to retire early and figured that compound interest would help), says you never know what can happen in politics coz someone dies or retires, or in the case of Illinois, gets indicted. 555 He wanted to graduate a year early from high school but the Education Board head refused, so Schock ran for his office and won when he was 19 or so. (See Chris Wallace's Sunday interview on Fox). Bam bam gave him a lift on AF One when he went to a Caterpillar factory in IL. Afterwards, Schock refused to vote for the stim pkg. 555 I like this kid. 27 years old.

More reading

Congressman Aaron Schock Hottest Newcomer on Capitol Hill - Associated Content
27-year-old Illinois Congressman turns down Obama’s plea | THE AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY | Obama Lies | ObamaLies.com | Exposing Mainstream Media Hypocrisy and Lies

GOP is the party of the past, party for the old stupid people,

Jet how old are you ? probably in your mid 40s, which is quite young for a republican. Would hate to hear your ideas when you are past 50, it will get ugly

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Jet how old are you ? probably in your mid 40s,

jet?
mid 40s?

that's the funniest thing i've read on TD this week.

Originally Posted by sabang

Maybe guys like this pretty boy may represent a new generation of Republican leadership, here he is, Jetties poster boy -

^ hey, where's his flag pin?

why does he hate america?

Originally Posted by sabang

I've got to believe that somewhere, away from the media spotlight and public bickering, there must be some serious brainstorming happening...

Ah, do you think the DNC is that bad?

Originally Posted by sabang

Maybe guys like this pretty boy may represent a new generation of Republican leadership, here he is, Jetties poster boy -

He is not yet tainted by Chicago slime (to my knowledge). Get 'em while they're young. He's gotta be smart -- wasn't sucked in by the libbies even when he he was young.

Here is an interesting opinion, piece.

Comments and opinions? I think he is correct in many areas.

Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (From a Former Republican)


You Republicans are the arsonists who burned down our national home. You combined the failed ideologies of the Religious Right, so-called free market deregulation and the Neoconservative love of war to light a fire that has consumed America. Now you have the nerve to criticize the "architect" America just hired -- President Obama -- to rebuild from the ashes. You do nothing constructive, just try to hinder the one person willing and able to fix the mess you created.

I used to be one of you. As recently as 2000 I worked to get Senator McCain elected in that year's primary. (McCain and Gen. Tommy Franks wrote glowing endorsements regarding my book about military service, AWOL.). I have a file of handwritten thank you notes from Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II. In the 1970s and early 80s I hung out with Jack Kemp and bought into his "supply side" myth and even wrote a book he endorsed pushing his ideas.) There's more, but take it from me; my parents (evangelical leaders Francis and Edith Schaeffer) and I were about as tight with -- and useful to -- the Republican Party as anyone. We played a big part creating the Religious Right.

In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God). They wanted America to fail in order to prove they were right about America's "moral decline." Soon after McCain lost in 2000 I re-registered as an independent in disgust with W. Bush. But I still respected many Republicans. Not today.

How can anyone who loves our country support the Republicans now? Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan defined the modern conservatism that used to be what the Republican Party I belonged to was about. Today no actual conservative can be a Republican. Reagan would despise today's wholly negative Republican Party. And can you picture the gentlemanly and always polite Ronald Reagan, endorsing a radio hate-jock slob who crudely mocked a man with Parkinson's and who now says he wants an American president to fail?!

With people like Limbaugh as the loudmouth image of the Republican Party -- you need no enemies. But something far more serious has happened than an image problem: the Republican Party has become the party of obstruction at just the time when all Americans should be pulling together for the good of our country. Instead, Republicans are today's fifth column sabotaging American renewal.

President Obama has been in office barely 45 days and the Republican Party has the nerve to blame him for the economic and military cataclysm he inherited. I say economic and military cataclysm because without the needless war in Iraq you all backed we would not be in the economic mess we're in today. If that money had been spent here at home on renovating our infrastructure, taking us toward a green economy, putting our health-care system in order we'd be a very different situation.

As the father of a Marine who served in George W. Bush's misbegotten wars let me say this: if President Obama's strategy to repair our economy, infrastructure and healthcare fails that will put our troops at far greater risk because the world will become a far more dangerous place. So for all you flag-waving Republicans who are trying to undermine the President at home -- if you succeed more of our troops will be killed abroad.

Link & Entire: Frank Schaeffer: Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (From a Former Republican)

Now you have the nerve to criticize the "architect" America just hired -- President Obama -- to rebuild from the ashes.

Have some more kool-aid Frank. It's flavored with your hope which has crossed over into delusions.

Frank read the 1999 New York Times article I posted, right? He knows how Clinton, Dodd and Schumer were "architects" of the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, right? Frank? Get a grip.

TPMDC Morning Roundup » Report: Toomey To Challenge Specter Again In 2010 Republican Primary

By Eric Kleefeld - March 5, 2009


Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) could be in very serious trouble. Former Rep. Pat Toomey, who challenged Specter from the right in the Republican primary back in 2004, then went on to head the Club For Growth, is reportedly running again in 2010.

In this case, bad news for Specter could also be good news for Democrats -- if the ultra-conservative Toomey wins the primary, the Democratic nominee will have a very good shot at winning the seat, as opposed to Specter starting out as the favorite in any general election.

Toomey very nearly beat Specter in the 2004 primary, making it a 51%-49% race even though Specter had the full weight of the Bush White House behind him. This time could be different: There is no Republican White House; the GOP voter base is smaller and even more conservative; and most importantly, Specter has just voted for the stimulus package -- you know, that thing the right-wing activists denounce as a socialist takeover of America.

Indeed, a recent Susquehanna poll showed just how problematic things are for Specter: Among registered Republicans, 66% want someone else, and only 26% say he deserves another term.

Michael Steels has already stated he would punish Specter for voting for the stimulus package by withholding money from him, and 2 other GOP Senators that voted for it.

It's very possible that the Dems could have 60 Senators in 2010.

Link: TPMDC | Talking Points Memo | Report: Toomey To Challenge Specter Again In 2010 Republican Primary