On the GOP

[dblack]

agreed. They both have too much concentrated power and are easily identified by the big biz lobbyists.

So remind me what the intent of this thread is again? AND incidentally? When will you be posting a similar thread regarding Democrats?

why would I? I never claimed to be a Democrat. I merely choose them as there is no one else to choose because of the two-party system.

There it is. The root of our political dysfunction - 'lesser of two evils'.

 

[Redfish]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

I actually agree with you about the GOP. What I find odd is that you seem to think that the DP is not also made up of extremists and that it comes anywhere close to representing "all United States Citizens". How can you possibly defend such an insinuation?

Immie

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the Social Contract, safety nets and a level playing field. The GOP which claims Christianity does nothing to suggest they believe in the teachings of Jesus which I learned in the Catechism

What makes you think that the majority of republicans do not also believe in those things. The only difference is that you think the federal government should administer the social contract as it sees fit while most republicans want that handled by families, churches, charities and local governments

Which republicans, by name, do not believe in the teachings of Jesus? Please quote me some scripture that says that the federal government should tell us what to eat and drink, what kind of car we should drive, and what we should keep our thermostats at.

 

[The T]

So remind me what the intent of this thread is again? AND incidentally? When will you be posting a similar thread regarding Democrats?

why would I? I never claimed to be a Democrat. I merely choose them as there is no one else to choose because of the two-party system.

There it is. The root of our political dysfunction - 'lesser of two evils'.

Indeed. I vote for an individual, their record, and their principle(s). I care NOT for parties.

 

[Stephanie]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

I actually agree with you about the GOP. What I find odd is that you seem to think that the DP is not also made up of extremists and that it comes anywhere close to representing "all United States Citizens". How can you possibly defend such an insinuation?

Immie

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the Social Contract, safety nets and a level playing field. The GOP which claims Christianity does nothing to suggest they believe in the teachings of Jesus which I learned in the Catechism

well for sure no Republicans believes in any of those things...a social contract?, so you live in a commune? Republicans see people as individuals not groups, such as Hispanics, gays, women, etc etc like you Democrats that way you can use them...take for instance your all's lovely, war on women...you should look in your own party and clean it up before worrying over the other...It really has become very ugly in their tactics

 

[Immanuel]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

I actually agree with you about the GOP. What I find odd is that you seem to think that the DP is not also made up of extremists and that it comes anywhere close to representing "all United States Citizens". How can you possibly defend such an insinuation?

Immie

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the Social Contract, safety nets and a level playing field. The GOP which claims Christianity does nothing to suggest they believe in the teachings of Jesus which I learned in the Catechism

You did not answer the question.

How can you possibly believe that the bastards representing your party are not extremist or that they come close to representing all American citizens? That should not be a difficult question to answer.

Immie

 

[Erand7899]

I see. You're not admitting to being a member of the GOP, nor of the Democratic Party. So why would you find my comments on the current state of the RP amusing or worth an ad hominem? I'm may be off base, but I smell a self righteous curmudgeon whose allegiance is only to himself and enjoys 'hearing' himself 'talk'.

A thoughtful response would either defend the RP (though it is hard to imagine a thoughtful post defending the RP of today) or, in your case, and argument offering an alternative to the DP and the RP.

Actually, a thoughtful response is no response at all. Your premise is flawed and therefore requires no comment. If anything, it is nothing but a bait and switch to get people to defend what YOU consider the indefensible. Except that what you consider indefensible is itself, an extremist position.

Now you're being ridiculous. My "premise"? I pointed out facts and offered an opinion. You may disagree and LOL or ignore my post. But don't lie and pretend, for example, what the GOP is doing on the issue of abortion isn't an attack on women; what the H. of Rep. is doing on the Immigration issue is not an attack on Latinos.

To the contrary, you point out opinions and consider them to be facts.

The opposition to blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants is not an attack on Latinos, and the opposition to late term abortion is not an attack on women. Your assertions are opinion, not fact. You have been thoroughly indoctrinated, and you are not smart enough to even notice it.

A simple fact is that poll after poll has shown that 40+% of American voters self identify as conservative. Only 20% self identify as liberal. You figure out which group best represents America politically, and which is the fringe.

Neither national party is conservative, but the Republican party is less liberal than the Democrat party. The war within the Republican party is an attempt by conservatives to take the party back from the liberal leadership. If we lose, it will not matter whether the Republican party survives or not, because the country will not survive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I actually agree with you about the GOP. What I find odd is that you seem to think that the DP is not also made up of extremists and that it comes anywhere close to representing "all United States Citizens". How can you possibly defend such an insinuation?

Immie

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the Social Contract, safety nets and a level playing field. The GOP which claims Christianity does nothing to suggest they believe in the teachings of Jesus which I learned in the Catechism

well for sure no Republicans believes in any of those things...a social contract?, so you live in a commune? Republicans see people as individuals not groups, such as Hispanics, gays, women, etc etc like you Democrats that way you can use them...take for instance your all's lovely, war on women...you should look in your own party and clean it up before worrying over the other...It really has become very ugly in their tactics

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

 

[Oddball]

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

The "social contract" is a completely mythical lolberal straw man.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually, a thoughtful response is no response at all. Your premise is flawed and therefore requires no comment. If anything, it is nothing but a bait and switch to get people to defend what YOU consider the indefensible. Except that what you consider indefensible is itself, an extremist position.

Now you're being ridiculous. My "premise"? I pointed out facts and offered an opinion. You may disagree and LOL or ignore my post. But don't lie and pretend, for example, what the GOP is doing on the issue of abortion isn't an attack on women; what the H. of Rep. is doing on the Immigration issue is not an attack on Latinos.

To the contrary, you point out opinions and consider them to be facts.

The opposition to blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants is not an attack on Latinos, and the opposition to late term abortion is not an attack on women. Your assertions are opinion, not fact. You have been thoroughly indoctrinated, and you are not smart enough to even notice it.

I never mentioned anything about amnesty nor anything about late term abortions. Put your biases aside and read the words I wrote.

A simple fact is that poll after poll has shown that 40+% of American voters self identify as conservative. Only 20% self identify as liberal. You figure out which group best represents America politically, and which is the fringe.

A poll such as you suggest (and didn't post) is only as good as the questions asked.

Neither national party is conservative, but the Republican party is less liberal than the Democrat party. The war within the Republican party is an attempt by conservatives to take the party back from the liberal leadership. If we lose, it will not matter whether the Republican party survives or not, because the country will not survive.

Your opinions in this last paragraph are absurd. Before posting such blather you might take a moment to think and define the terms liberal and conservative, radical and reactionary (and the idiot fringe).

 

[Stephanie]

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the Social Contract, safety nets and a level playing field. The GOP which claims Christianity does nothing to suggest they believe in the teachings of Jesus which I learned in the Catechism

well for sure no Republicans believes in any of those things...a social contract?, so you live in a commune? Republicans see people as individuals not groups, such as Hispanics, gays, women, etc etc like you Democrats that way you can use them...take for instance your all's lovely, war on women...you should look in your own party and clean it up before worrying over the other...It really has become very ugly in their tactics

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

lol, you sound dumb using social contract...what does this contract consist of?
for crying out loud...

 

[blackhawk]

A Democrat does not like the Republican party I will file this under nothing new.

 

[The T]

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

The "social contract" is a completely mythical lolberal straw man.

Astounding how those like the individual you answer have no concept of the individual or their responsibility to their own individual liberty...but they too flunked out on responsibility 101.

 

[Wry Catcher]

well for sure no Republicans believes in any of those things...a social contract?, so you live in a commune? Republicans see people as individuals not groups, such as Hispanics, gays, women, etc etc like you Democrats that way you can use them...take for instance your all's lovely, war on women...you should look in your own party and clean it up before worrying over the other...It really has become very ugly in their tactics

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

lol, you sound dumb using social contract...what does this contract consist of?
for crying out loud...

An entire body of political thought, much of which was the basis of our Founding Fathers theory of governance. Look up John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for a primer.

You're welcome.

 

[Oddball]

An entire body of political thought, much of which was the basis of our Founding Fathers theory of governance. Look up John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for a primer.

Rousseau was a socialist.....Little surprise you'd cite him.

 

[Redfish]

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

lol, you sound dumb using social contract...what does this contract consist of?
for crying out loud...

An entire body of political thought, much of which was the basis of our Founding Fathers theory of governance. Look up John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for a primer.

You're welcome.

are you a total lunatic? the founders wanted individual freedom, not a government that was involved in every aspect of our lives.

what idiotic liberal schools filled your head with that bullshit?

 

[Wry Catcher]

An entire body of political thought, much of which was the basis of our Founding Fathers theory of governance. Look up John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for a primer.

Rousseau was a socialist.....Little surprise you'd cite him.

LOL, you're dumber then I thought. I suppose he was a Marxist too.

 

[Oddball]

Rousseau attacked the very notion of private property, the very linchpin of American capitalist society....It doesn't get any more socialistic than that.

The dumbbell here is you, Danny Vermin.

 

[Trajan]

My intent (really!) was not to invite the echo chamber to have a circle jerk and post red herrings. Time will tell if the RP can survive or go the way of the Whigs.

I have heard that said about both parties more times than I can count, some party always seems to be on the cusp of generational dominance , well, since 76, I have not seen it.

A thoughtful response would explain away the wrongheaded remarks by Republican Leaders on women, immigrants, gun control, and foreign policy with examples of common sense solutions to the problems facing our country.

And here is the crux of the matter, There is no explaining away because you've already been told what to think, you never challenge the fact that your party , the Democratic Party makes just as many wrongheaded (your word) remarks on a myriad of topics.

The difference being the media holds the Republicans accountable for each and everything they say ( ans as they frame it) And makes sure everyone hears about, And judges them wrong without a worthwhile explanation of circumstances or an honest appraisal as in; there is a genuine, viable and honest difference of opinion and they are not so much wrong, but see things differently from Obama et al.......but that's not the way they report on these events, platforms etc.


We both know that it is not the same on the other side, 90% of the media agrees with the way Obama sees things the way he does things and naturally sees the republican party as those not only opposed but wrong.

Example- naming recess appointments while the senate is in session, or, the filibuster, which both Reid and Obama opposed vehemently eliminating before the turn over of the senate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Odd-dude takes one phase from Rousseau's work and concludes Rousseau is a socialist.

"Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it by force. So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together, is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity to choose how we ought to live. Might never makes right, despite how often it pretends that it can.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse, and the prescriptive work that is to come. Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Do your homework and read this link:

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[Trajan]

Rousseau attacked the very notion of private property, the very linchpin of American capitalist society....It doesn't get any more socialistic than that.

The dumbbell here is you, Danny Vermin.

He doesn't know the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy