Republicans - Rich vs. Rubes

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During the 50s and 60s republicans supported the Middle Class, understood its importance. They were advocates of business but to the extent it reinforced the Middle Class; and although often at odds with unions republicans understood the role they played in countervailing corporate power and, again, their importance of maintaining the Middle Class.

At some point thereafter things went horribly wrong, where the Middle Class was sacrificed for profits, and sound was governance replaced with dogma, demagoguery, and hyperbole.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, we'd save money if we went to a single payer system that controlled costs. If Obamacare has a flaw, it's that it relies on the current system of greedy health care companies and greedier health insruance companies.

Its flaw, Joe is that it is not doing a thing that it was designed to do. It has been rejected by the same people who proposed it, once they found out what was actually in it.

Nice to see what "Pro-Life" really means.

Pro life.. which you are not. Kill all the babies. You sick bastard.

That's kind of the last gasp. It's kind of like a "colored" water fountain. Well, we got to give them the water, but we don't have to like it. Separeate but equal is an oxymoron

Coming from liberals who insist on stereotyping minorities. Thats laughable.

Well, actually, it is. It's bad science. It puts us behind our rivals in understanding medicine and science.

Science, a religion to liberals; one half of human understanding to the rest.

No issue here at all. The schools are run by the state, as they should be. Keep your prayers in your church, keep your schooling in your schools. Works for me.

My children will pray wherever they please.

Um, dude, video games don't cause violence. the Japanese play video games that you couldn't even sell here... and they had 11 gun deaths last year.

Wow. That's admirable. But that doesn't mean we ban guns here. Oh right, says the guy from Chicago. Figures.

Are you going to hit all the redneck talking point, because honestly, I think you are missing the point of the discussion. Who is insisting on immigration?

You are. Amnesty for illegals for example?

Again, not really. The problem isn't a cutting problem, it's a revenue problem. We aren't taxing teh wealthy enough... and they fool the dumb rubes like you into going along with hit

A revenue problem? We generate enough money in this country to pay off the national debt each year. Taxes stifle revenue, it doesn't generate it. You are foolish to believe such a thing. Calling him a redneck just shows how much of an argument yours is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Uh no. People turned on him because the media had already begun its shift to the far left. It was preparing itself for the inevitable coming of a liberal president. Far left, as it now stands today SURPRISE! You were one of those folks who were no doubt suckered into this feeding frenzy.

As for the wars you used to be for, John Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Remember that?

Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops - CBS News

Uh, no, the media is always been left.

People turned on bush because he fucked up Iraq, he fucked up Katrina and he fucked up the economy. Maybe some of that blame SHOULD be on other people, but as one of his better predecessors pointed out "The Buck Stops here!"

Well there you go, you just admitted it. Consider yourself baited.

He might have done the things you said, but has Obama improved these things?

1. Obama started a war in Libya, and has repeatedly stuck other countries in the middle east via drone, all without congressional approval.

2. It has been six months post Sandy, and Obama has done nothing for the victims in New York and New Jersey who still remain homeless and destitute.

3. You just said that people did not turn on Bush for his spending, yet here you are blaming him for messing up the economy. Obama has spent twice as much as Bush, and in less time. Our labor force participation shrinks, and Obama insists on furloughing FAA employees for the sake of politics. You tell me who is really ******* it up now Joe.

You're grasping for straws.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, we'd save money if we went to a single payer system that controlled costs. If Obamacare has a flaw, it's that it relies on the current system of greedy health care companies and greedier health insruance companies.

Its flaw, Joe is that it is not doing a thing that it was designed to do. It has been rejected by the same people who proposed it, once they found out what was actually in it.

No, they really haven't. In ten years, the RUbes will be clinging to ObamaCare like it was their idea.

Science, a religion to liberals; one half of human understanding to the rest.

Science provides testable, measurable results. Faith is always an excuse.. God let something horrible happen. You must not have been praying hard enough. Horrible shit happens despite your prayers. Well, God must have had a reason.

My children will pray wherever they please.

Hope they enjoy doing it in detention.

Again, not really. The problem isn't a cutting problem, it's a revenue problem. We aren't taxing teh wealthy enough... and they fool the dumb rubes like you into going along with hit

A revenue problem? We generate enough money in this country to pay off the national debt each year. Taxes stifle revenue, it doesn't generate it. You are foolish to believe such a thing. Calling him a redneck just shows how much of an argument yours is.[/QUOTE]

Then how was it when the rich were paying their fair share of 93% top marginal rate under Ike, the country enjoyed unprecedented wealth and prosperity?

How it is when Clinton rolled back SOME of the Reagan tax giveaways, we balanced the budget, unemployment dropped to 3% and things were kind of awesome?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Well there you go, you just admitted it. Consider yourself baited.

He might have done the things you said, but has Obama improved these things?

1. Obama started a war in Libya, and has repeatedly stuck other countries in the middle east via drone, all without congressional approval.

Wasn't required. Libya was a NATO operation. We signed the NATO treaty.

2. It has been six months post Sandy, and Obama has done nothing for the victims in New York and New Jersey who still remain homeless and destitute.

Actually, the Sandy response has been as good as the Katrina response was awful. Even Chris CHristie has praised it and gotten ostracized from the He-Man Obama Hater's Club.

3. You just said that people did not turn on Bush for his spending, yet here you are blaming him for messing up the economy. Obama has spent twice as much as Bush, and in less time. Our labor force participation shrinks, and Obama insists on furloughing FAA employees for the sake of politics. You tell me who is really ******* it up now Joe.

You're grasping for straws.

No, things are better off than they were four years ago.

That's why Obama won. He could answer the Reagan Question...

Most sane people realize that you weren't going to fix 8-30 years of Republican fuckups in 4 years. Because most people know it's harder to fix things than screw them up.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The thing I've noticed in my 12 step recovery from being a Republican is that the GOP, since 1980 at least, has divided itself into Rich Issues vs. Rube Issues.

And it's really easy to tell them apart.

A Rich Issue is one where only the 1% really benefits, the rest of us are left holding the bag, but the GOP will act on these things like they are top priorities and their mouthpieces on Hate Radio and Faux News will spend a lot of time convincing you that you have a stake at the table.

Examples- Tax Cuts for Rich People. Free Trade. Right to Work. At Will Employment.


A Rube issue is one that people get emotionally invested in, but the GOP isn't really the least bit interested in changing things on them. Instead, these are issues that are meant to keep you truly upset about something and voting against your own economic issues, and they are never mentioned again until the next election-

Examples - Abortion. Gay Marriage. Creationism. Prayer in Schools. The needle hasn't moved one inch on most of these issues, or if it has moved (as in the case of gay marriage) its been in the opposite of the desired direction.

There are some cavaets, of course. Guns might seem on the surface to be a "Rube" issue, but it's really a "rich" issue. It's about the gun companies being able to sell to someone like Nancy Lanza, and screw the consequences. There wouldn't be as big a market for the rich to make money off the guns if the rubes weren't kept really scared all the time, so you have to make it easy for crooks to get guns.

Immigration is another one. ON the surface, you keep the rubes angry about "those people" wanting to take their jobs, but the Rich are the ones offering the jobs to "those people". Not just the 20 or so illegals who are already here, but the 1.25 million "legal" immigrants who get entry visas from employers because they claim up and down they can't find a qualified American. No, really.

When I stopped being a Republican is when I realized I had nothing in common with the "rich" and refused to be a "Rube".

The GOP base is now the yahoo hayseeds, bible thumpers backward southern slow witted slackjawed uneducated yokels who support and defend the few rich at the top who are pulling their strings

Right. That is why you run everytime a hayseed answers your attack threads point for point with answers you cannot deny. Like today for instance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Well there you go, you just admitted it. Consider yourself baited.

He might have done the things you said, but has Obama improved these things?

1. Obama started a war in Libya, and has repeatedly stuck other countries in the middle east via drone, all without congressional approval.

Wasn't required. Libya was a NATO operation. We signed the NATO treaty.

2. It has been six months post Sandy, and Obama has done nothing for the victims in New York and New Jersey who still remain homeless and destitute.

Actually, the Sandy response has been as good as the Katrina response was awful. Even Chris CHristie has praised it and gotten ostracized from the He-Man Obama Hater's Club.

3. You just said that people did not turn on Bush for his spending, yet here you are blaming him for messing up the economy. Obama has spent twice as much as Bush, and in less time. Our labor force participation shrinks, and Obama insists on furloughing FAA employees for the sake of politics. You tell me who is really ******* it up now Joe.

You're grasping for straws.

No, things are better off than they were four years ago.

That's why Obama won. He could answer the Reagan Question...

Most sane people realize that you weren't going to fix 8-30 years of Republican fuckups in 4 years. Because most people know it's harder to fix things than screw them up.

Obama signed onto it, Congress did not approve the use of US military force there. He violated the War Powers Act, as well as the 10th Amendment. He also violated Article II Section 2: The President shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

And how are things better off than they were four years ago? Is that all you can give me?

Obama used the people as pawns to his own gains. Exploiting the LGBT community, playing on the plights of the poor, propagandizing the so called greed of the rich, and lofting some pretty unattainable goals out there for people to get their hopes on.

Eight to 30 years? Mighty selective time frame, Joe. Obama has had now close to six years to work on a solution. Let me know when more government spending fixes something.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My children will pray wherever they please.

Hope they enjoy doing it in detention.

Hope their school lawyers up then, because that violates their First Amendment rights to practice their faith freely. Stupid liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

Wasn't required. Libya was a NATO operation. We signed the NATO treaty.


up.

Obama signed onto it, Congress did not approve the use of US military force there. He violated the War Powers Act, as well as the 10th Amendment. He also violated Article II Section 2: The President shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Guy, you are about sixty years too late on that argument. The Republicans tried to make this same argument during the Kosovo campaign in teh Clinton years, and the courts slapped them down, hard.

And how are things better off than they were four years ago? Is that all you can give me?.

Umemployment at the height of the Recession- 10%. Unemployment now- 7.6%.
Dow at the height of the recession- 6000. Today- close to 15,000.
GDP Growth at the height of the recession- -6%. GDP Growth now- about +3%

Yes- things are better off. Sorry, they really are. They are still bad. But no one trusts the GOP to fix them after they got us into the mess to start with.

Obama used the people as pawns to his own gains. Exploiting the LGBT community, playing on the plights of the poor, propagandizing the so called greed of the rich, and lofting some pretty unattainable goals out there for people to get their hopes on..

What "unobtainable" goals?

If the rich have an image problem, it is one of their own making. If they were smart, they'd be looking to fix it. I often wonder if the Bourbons were as clueless when they were being dragged to the Guilotine, wondering what they did wrong.

Eight to 30 years? Mighty selective time frame, Joe..

No, a lot of the problems are Bush's fault, and some of them go back to Reagan, such as the war on the middle class.

.

Obama has had now close to six years to work on a solution. Let me know when more government spending fixes something.

He's had less than five, and if you are a libertarian nut who drives down a government provided road knowing you won't be murdered because there are government provided cops out there protecting your sorry ass, I'm not sure what argument to make.

And this is the problem with the GOP. They've come to believe all government is bad. Used to be, they were for smaller, more effective government. Now they are for government that just ***** it up when they are in charge.

 

[JoeB131]

My children will pray wherever they please.

Hope they enjoy doing it in detention.

Hope their school lawyers up then, because that violates their First Amendment rights to practice their faith freely. Stupid liberal.

No, not really. Schools can send kids to detention for unruly behavior at their discretion.

 

[Darkwind]

A rube:

Someone who thinks that across the board tax cuts is for the benefit of the rich only.

 

[JoeB131]

A rube:

Someone who thinks that across the board tax cuts is for the benefit of the rich only.

They weren't "across the board"...

They were shifted.

For instance, Reagan did lower the top rate from 70% to 33%.

But then in the tax reform acts of 1986, he eliminated a lot of nice tax deductions working class folks enjoyed. Such as the deduction for credit card interest.

But you keep missing my point.

If you are a working class Republican, and you think protecting the little fetuses is the mostest important thing ever, you would put that up a bit higher on your list of "Things to Do" than giving rich folks tax cuts, right?

I mean it's a moral impertative. Your Invisible Sky Pixie might start smiting us any minute now if we don't get this fixed.

But oddly, they really didn't do anything about it. They did make sure the rich got their tax breaks, though.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My children will pray wherever they please.

Hope they enjoy doing it in detention.

Hope their school lawyers up then, because that violates their First Amendment rights to practice their faith freely. Stupid liberal.

No, not really. Schools can send kids to detention for unruly behavior at their discretion.

How is praying unruly behavior Joe?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wasn't required. Libya was a NATO operation. We signed the NATO treaty.


up.

Obama signed onto it, Congress did not approve the use of US military force there. He violated the War Powers Act, as well as the 10th Amendment. He also violated Article II Section 2: The President shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Guy, you are about sixty years too late on that argument. The Republicans tried to make this same argument during the Kosovo campaign in teh Clinton years, and the courts slapped them down, hard.

Quote the case law or it didn't happen. Campbell vs. Clinton doesn't count. The president should not rely on the UN to declare war. The Constitution makes it clear the he is not to declare war until he has full consent from the Senate.

 

[Erand7899]

[

Your comments indicate that you are not only a rube, but you are a super rube, a dupe. You have not just bought the big lie, you have bought into the bad logic behind the big lie. Your argument is vague generalities, based on vague terms that are necessarily redefined to fit your claims.

Who are the rich? What is the dollar amount, in either income or wealth, that makes one a defined member of that evil cabol? Are Obama and Soros part of that evil 1%, or are they exceptions to it.

The Democrat party leadership seems to think that anyone who makes over $250,000 are rich. A large percentage of the Democrat party faithful seem to think that anyone who makes a decent living, or owns a business is rich. The term "rich" seems to change to fit whatever segment of society that your politicians are after at the moment.

You claim that the Republican party uses wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc., to keep the Republican masses preoccupied while they rip them off. However, it has probably never dawned on you that wedge issues necessarily require two sides to even be an issue. Consequently, there must be rubes on the Democrat side to keep those issues alive. Either that or you are just a misinformed stooge or a useful idiot.

It is obvious that you have little in common with the rich, and your lack of common sense is a chief difference.

The only thing I don't have in common with rich a--holes is a willingness to screw people over to make myself richer.

Which I'm actually sort of smug about.

But the point you miss, so I'll make it similiar to you.

What's more important to your average right winger- ending abortion or making sure the rich get their tax cuts. IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE, which one would be more important?

Well, I would hope, if you guys believe half the spew I see on the 20 anti-abortion threads running, you'd put banning abortion over giving rich people tax cuts. Right?

But funny thing is, when you guys get into the White House, the rich gets there tax cuts, and nothing is done about abortion.. Cutting taxes for rich people were the first things both Reagan and Bush-43 set out to do.

Now why is that? Who is really running things?

Very few rich people screwed anyone over to get rich. You pretty well outed your envy and greed on that one. That is the theme song of the total loser, giving himself an out for his failure to thrive.

Abortion has been declared a right by the Supreme Court, and will never be overturned in our life time. Current discussion is over establishing reasonable limits on that right. I am in favor of giving everyone tax cuts, and I have enough common sense to realize that those who make more and pay more in taxes will benefit more from any tax cut. Tax cuts leave more money in the hands of those who use it to make more money, and that is good for everyone.

I am also in favor of limiting the power of the federal government, and concurrently limitiing the power of federal politicians to sell favors for campaign cash. A government that continually extends its reach into every aspect of our lives is creating more avenues for selling favors. No favors to sell, means no buyers.

 

[Erand7899]

Consider this liberal socialists:

You always claim that you want good paying jobs, with benefits, but you never seem to consider that the vast majority of good paying jobs, with benefits, are provided by thriving corporations. The same corporations that you wish to take down. Thriving businesses also means job security for their employees and for the employees of smaller businesses who support the larger business.

 

[SFC Ollie]

[q
You mean the same way the Democrats do with those who do that to them? Obama was elected in 2008 in no small part by how put off people were with Bush and his policies especially his spending yet during his first term Obama and the Democrats not only continue the Bush spending ways but expand them what happens in 2012 the Democratic base rally's behind endorse's and reelects the very people who continued the polices they were so opposed to in 2008 seems rather telling about the Democrat base.

Your premise if flawed from the start.

People did not turn against Bush because of his "Spending".

They turned on him because of his wars and his incompetence.

As for turning against things you used to be for... you guys were all for "ObamaCare" when it was called "RomneyCare".

Fact is that Your Romneycare and Obamacare are two different things. One was State and one is National. One never would have happened here the other was voted for only by bribing enough Democrats to get it to pass. Without reading it. You do understand that not one Republican voted for Obamacare.....Don't you?

People turned against Bush so bad that he did 2 terms... BTW, Obama is in his second term, time to kill the blame Bush game.... It's bad and only going to get worse....


Neither party in Washington will take the hard stance that we need to take.

 

[blackhawk]

[q
You mean the same way the Democrats do with those who do that to them? Obama was elected in 2008 in no small part by how put off people were with Bush and his policies especially his spending yet during his first term Obama and the Democrats not only continue the Bush spending ways but expand them what happens in 2012 the Democratic base rally's behind endorse's and reelects the very people who continued the polices they were so opposed to in 2008 seems rather telling about the Democrat base.

Your premise if flawed from the start.

People did not turn against Bush because of his "Spending".

They turned on him because of his wars and his incompetence.

As for turning against things you used to be for... you guys were all for "ObamaCare" when it was called "RomneyCare".

Your memory seems a bit flawed didn't Obama say in 2008 running up the amount of debt Bush did was un-American? Yet he matched and exceeded him in half the time as for your claim about the wars no one ever turned on him over Afghanistan and people especially Democrats in D.C. didn't turn on Iraq until it got tough and it became politically convenient to do so. Finally how could we all have been for Romneycare when it was a state implemented plan not a national one? I recall no one from the Republican party pushing or suggesting Romneycare should be implemented on a national level.

 

[whitehall]

The thing I've noticed in my 12 step recovery from being a Republican is that the GOP, since 1980 at least, has divided itself into Rich Issues vs. Rube Issues.

And it's really easy to tell them apart.

A Rich Issue is one where only the 1% really benefits, the rest of us are left holding the bag, but the GOP will act on these things like they are top priorities and their mouthpieces on Hate Radio and Faux News will spend a lot of time convincing you that you have a stake at the table.

Examples- Tax Cuts for Rich People. Free Trade. Right to Work. At Will Employment.


A Rube issue is one that people get emotionally invested in, but the GOP isn't really the least bit interested in changing things on them. Instead, these are issues that are meant to keep you truly upset about something and voting against your own economic issues, and they are never mentioned again until the next election-

Examples - Abortion. Gay Marriage. Creationism. Prayer in Schools. The needle hasn't moved one inch on most of these issues, or if it has moved (as in the case of gay marriage) its been in the opposite of the desired direction.

There are some cavaets, of course. Guns might seem on the surface to be a "Rube" issue, but it's really a "rich" issue. It's about the gun companies being able to sell to someone like Nancy Lanza, and screw the consequences. There wouldn't be as big a market for the rich to make money off the guns if the rubes weren't kept really scared all the time, so you have to make it easy for crooks to get guns.

Immigration is another one. ON the surface, you keep the rubes angry about "those people" wanting to take their jobs, but the Rich are the ones offering the jobs to "those people". Not just the 20 or so illegals who are already here, but the 1.25 million "legal" immigrants who get entry visas from employers because they claim up and down they can't find a qualified American. No, really.

When I stopped being a Republican is when I realized I had nothing in common with the "rich" and refused to be a "Rube".

The left wing "cure" for the "rich vs" rube" society is to keep whose arrogant "rubes" from ever becoming rich.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[

Well there you go, you just admitted it. Consider yourself baited.

He might have done the things you said, but has Obama improved these things?

1. Obama started a war in Libya, and has repeatedly stuck other countries in the middle east via drone, all without congressional approval.

Wasn't required. Libya was a NATO operation. We signed the NATO treaty

guess you never got the e-mail WE are NATO with a bunch of piss ass countrys backing us up.