PDA

View Full Version : OK, GOP, You Have The House...



NJCardFan
11-03-2010, 10:36 AM
They fumbled the ball the last time they regained power. My fear is that once in, they'll do the same dumb stuff and do the "reach across the aisle" nonsense. Hopefully now because a lot of candidates who won are more conservative than 1994. This class needs to stick to their principles.

Rebel Yell
11-03-2010, 10:44 AM
They fumbled the ball the last time they regained power. My fear is that once in, they'll do the same dumb stuff and do the "reach across the aisle" nonsense. Hopefully now because a lot of candidates who won are more conservative than 1994. This class needs to stick to their principles.

We need to put a shock collar around their wrists, and run the underground fence down the middle of the aisle.

ralph wiggum
11-03-2010, 10:54 AM
Hopefully none of those elected do something completely stupid, such as launch impeachment hearings against 0bama. I heard several of the uber-lefties suggest that such a thing would happen. That would be such a giant PR mistake.

I just hope that they follow through on many of the promises, primarily cutting entitlement spending wherever possible and cutting taxes. I heard a number of the leftists claiming again last night that the newly elected Republicans would have to find a way to pay for tax cuts. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
11-03-2010, 11:05 AM
Hopefully none of those elected do something completely stupid, such as launch impeachment hearings against 0bama. I heard several of the uber-lefties suggest that such a thing would happen. That would be such a giant PR mistake.

I just hope that they follow through on many of the promises, primarily cutting entitlement spending wherever possible and cutting taxes. I heard a number of the leftists claiming again last night that the newly elected Republicans would have to find a way to pay for tax cuts. :rolleyes:

There really is no need. With each passing day, Obama is leading his own way out the door.

Hawkgirl
11-03-2010, 11:29 AM
Here is the business they need to work on from the start:

1. Extend the Bush Tax Cuts...forever
2. Defund the healthcare bill
3. Freeze spending


Start plans to shrink government and government programs.

Wei Wu Wei
11-03-2010, 11:30 AM
Hopefully none of those elected do something completely stupid, such as launch impeachment hearings against 0bama. I heard several of the uber-lefties suggest that such a thing would happen. That would be such a giant PR mistake.

I just hope that they follow through on many of the promises, primarily cutting entitlement spending wherever possible and cutting taxes. I heard a number of the leftists claiming again last night that the newly elected Republicans would have to find a way to pay for tax cuts. :rolleyes:

It's a tricky line to balance on.

Tea Party candidates were boosted into office with their supporters wanting them to change things and stand up to washington establishments, including their own party.

One example is Congressman Ron Paul, Rand's father. I disagree with this man so very fundamentally but I respect him for being a man of principles rather than just being a party shrill. There are many votes where he was the single member of congress voting NO because of principles. I think that's awesome even if I disagree with his position.

He repeatedly goes against other members of his party.


Now, if Team R wants to beat Team D they need to all be on the same page, but that's not what the voters want, they want people who won't just play party politics and actually do stuff.

So the Tea Party candidates have to try to maintain their "outsider" image, while also needing to work entirely with Republicans in preparation for another election cycle.

namvet
11-03-2010, 11:30 AM
this election was NOT about R's and D's. it was about the people forcing they're will on this corrupt regime

and a hugh bonus


DEAD !!!

http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/h/1/h1cz30ax5yepy5p0.jpg


AeTgx_pj6m8

Wei Wu Wei
11-03-2010, 11:33 AM
Great post please incorporate more Kool and the Gang into your posting

megimoo
11-03-2010, 11:38 AM
We need to put a shock collar around their wrists, and run the underground fence down the middle of the aisle.We need term limits and easier recall !These evil Liberal/Progressives critters play 'hardball' and the RINO'S in Congress play fairy Badminton !

namvet
11-03-2010, 11:49 AM
Great post please incorporate more Kool and the Gang into your posting

you be sure and kiss Pelosi's asshole for she leaves ok ???

noonwitch
11-03-2010, 11:51 AM
I think that the GOP should elect Eric Cantor as Speaker instead of Boehner. It would be a fresh start with someone who isn't associated with the gridlock from before 2006.

I also saw Cantor when he was on The Daily Show a few weeks ago. He's smart, he's nice-looking and he can joke with Stewart and not get bullied.

namvet
11-03-2010, 12:07 PM
I think that the GOP should elect Eric Cantor as Speaker instead of Boehner. It would be a fresh start with someone who isn't associated with the gridlock from before 2006.

I also saw Cantor when he was on The Daily Show a few weeks ago. He's smart, he's nice-looking and he can joke with Stewart and not get bullied.

Boehner: the winners last night were the American people. he'll do

Chuck58
11-03-2010, 12:08 PM
this election was NOT about R's and D's. it was about the people forcing they're will on this corrupt regime

and a hugh bonus


DEAD !!!

http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/h/1/h1cz30ax5yepy5p0.jpg


AeTgx_pj6m8

Clearly a pre-botox picture.

Freeze spending. Defund healthcare, start dissembling almost everything the Anointed One/Pelosi/Reid have done these past couple of years.

Start shrinking government. Start being accountable to the people that allow them to govern.

They need to get up every morning and remind themselves, "We govern with the consent of the governed," and remind themselves that governing and ruling are two different things.

Finally, they need to remember that they're being watched. They were given another chance. If they start slipping into the business as usual syndrome, there'll be another change in a couple of years.

namvet
11-03-2010, 12:19 PM
Clearly a pre-botox picture.

Freeze spending. Defund healthcare, start dissembling almost everything the Anointed One/Pelosi/Reid have done these past couple of years.

Start shrinking government. Start being accountable to the people that allow them to govern.

They need to get up every morning and remind themselves, "We govern with the consent of the governed," and remind themselves that governing and ruling are two different things.

Finally, they need to remember that they're being watched. They were given another chance. If they start slipping into the business as usual syndrome, there'll be another change in a couple of years.


They need to get up every morning and remind themselves, "We govern with the consent of the governed," and remind themselves that governing and ruling are two different things.



seems to be the first thing they forgot !!!!

Rockntractor
11-03-2010, 01:45 PM
I think that the GOP should elect Eric Cantor as Speaker instead of Boehner. It would be a fresh start with someone who isn't associated with the gridlock from before 2006.

I also saw Cantor when he was on The Daily Show a few weeks ago. He's smart, he's nice-looking and he can joke with Stewart and not get bullied.

I agree, Cantor is a much better choice.

PoliCon
11-03-2010, 01:48 PM
GUYS - while what the GOP does once they take over is important - we still have to survive the lame duck session the dems have planned.

Rockntractor
11-03-2010, 01:53 PM
GUYS - while what the GOP does once they take over is important - we still have to survive the lame duck session the dems have planned.

Do you think we are not aware of that?
Maybe so, that would make a good thread topic!

malloc
11-03-2010, 02:46 PM
I know some of you think the GOP should go all attack dog crazy on the remaining democrats and the Obama administration. I know you think they should ignore any effort of bipartisanship, and just refuse to give the government any money, which is their own real power going this route, besides investigating this or that, but those tactics would be suicide for the GOP as this would very much cost them the independent vote in 2012.

The independents and the TEA Partiers want action, and grid locking Washington isn't going to produce the kind of action the TEA Partiers and independenents will like.

Follow me on this one.....

Of the Democrats left in the House, most of those are far left because those districts were the only safe ones left this election. All the middle ground went to the GOP. In the Senate, we have a different story, we have a few moderates who basically made campaign promises to stand with the GOP on certain issues. Then we have a President who probably wants to be re-elected enough in 2012 to give some ground, so it's all about how much ground we can make him give up.

Here are some moves that I think will keep independents and TEA Partiers happy with the Republicans they elected, as well as ensure larger majorities, including control of the Senate and maybe the White House in 2012.

1.) By January 1st, if the Bush Tax Cuts aren't already extended, the GOP could easily pass legislation that makes the tax cuts permanent for the middle/lower income brackets and temporary for the top brackets. (To be revisited when they have the other chambers obviously.) If the tax cuts are extended but not permanent, the GOP should move to make them permanent.

2.) Pass legislation to re-instate the Clinton-era welfare reform measures which were completely destroyed by the "stimulus" bills. Senate Democrats would be on this like white on rice.

3.) Pass legislation that narrowly defines "emergency spending", and makes Pay-As-You-Go law. Senate Democrats would look very stupid if they rejected this measure, since PayGo is one of their own broken promises.

4.) Pass legislation to do 'X' with the remaining TARP and Bailout funds, and by 'X' I mean fund something like unemployment or programs that already cost us debt. Considering voter anxiety over the debt, this would be a win for the Republicans and the Democrats would be stupid not to get on board.

5.) Pass legislation that repeals the individual mandate portion of Obama care. That is one of the single most hated parts of Obamacare with an 80% disapproval rating most democrats don't even agree with it or like it. Democrats would be dumb not to get on board, and it would be a blow to Obama if he didn't sign it. If he does sign it however, he'd be signing a death warrant for Obamacare because this would make Obamacare fiscally impossible, which will make it's repeal easier when the Republicans have an upper chamber majority and the white house again.

6.) Pass a temporary corporate and capital gains tax freeze. This is a real jobs bill, but will be a much harder sell to Senate Democrats.

Basically, anyone who thinks these republicans should hurl brimstone and fire and then try to privatize social security, repeal obamacare, and repeal the banking regulations bill, and completely undo Obama/Pelosi, is thinking with their pride and not with their head. Republicans need to choose their battles carefully for the next two years. They need to put Democrats on the spot and force legislative bipartisanship by putting Senate Democrats into a position where they can go along, or look like they are obstructing good, positive legislation. The batch of Democrats in the Senate should be having to balance between loosing their base for, "not standing up for the progressive agenda", and loosing their independent swing voters for stalling out legislation that would help the economy and/or jobs.

I think Boehner can pull off the scenario I described above and lead the GOP to a Senate Majority in 2012, because there is just no way all of the Senate Democrats are going to be able to walk the tightrope I described and get away with it.

However, a more positively performing congress, and a healing economy might well lead to an Obama re-election, but I don't think we sacrifice the Country to stop that. What we need is a damn good candidate to put down Obama, and we are kind of short on those.

Lager
11-03-2010, 02:50 PM
I read somewhere once, that Americans are all gung ho to cast their votes against big government, but when it comes time to actually start cutting back their favorite government programs, they get squeamish. I hate to be pessimistic, but all I see happening is perhaps stifling some of Obama's more radical agenda. If the size of government actually shrinks by any measure, then I will be pleasantly surprised.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it became obvious to me just how much Americans from all walks of life depended on the government. I don't see much headway in bucking that trend.

Wei Wu Wei
11-03-2010, 05:58 PM
the Republicans who now control the house are going to be expected to:

1. Cut Taxes
2. Cut The Deficit
(HOWEVER, if they want to get elected, they cannot cut entitlement spending like Social Security or Medicare)


does anyone see a way that this is realistically possible? Keeping in mind that they only control the house.



The entire "Republican Wave" was on cutting the deficit and the taxes, as well as less specific things like "shrinking government", and there is a pretty big election to look forward to.

Hawkgirl
11-03-2010, 08:35 PM
the Republicans who now control the house are going to be expected to:

1. Cut Taxes
2. Cut The Deficit
(HOWEVER, if they want to get elected, they cannot cut entitlement spending like Social Security or Medicare)


does anyone see a way that this is realistically possible? Keeping in mind that they only control the house.



The entire "Republican Wave" was on cutting the deficit and the taxes, as well as less specific things like "shrinking government", and there is a pretty big election to look forward to.

Don't forget, get rid of the monstrous Healthcare Bill

malloc
11-03-2010, 08:58 PM
does anyone see a way that this is realistically possible? Keeping in mind that they only control the house.


I explained how they are going to start this in my post above, and I believe what I described will pretty close to their legislative agenda. They re-instate the tax cuts, gut some of the discretionary budget, and chip away at Obamacare from the position they are in. If they are smart about it they can do it without "reaching across the isle", but by putting the moderate dems who distanced themselves from Obama into a position where they have to vote on their campaign promises, or break them to stand with their party. If they break them, they will be 1 term Senators in this climate. Given the exit poll analysis of this election, the Senate Dems are going to play ball on the issues I talked about above, or face more voter anger in 2 years, it's that simple.

If Obama goes veto crazy over this legislative agenda, he'll greatly diminish his chances of re-election, make the Republicans look like heroic underdogs fighting the man, and make the Democrats look like obstructionists all at the same time.

Rockntractor
11-03-2010, 09:07 PM
I explained how they are going to start this in my post above, and I believe what I described will pretty close to their legislative agenda. They re-instate the tax cuts, gut some of the discretionary budget, and chip away at Obamacare from the position they are in. If they are smart about it they can do it without "reaching across the isle", but by putting the moderate dems who distanced themselves from Obama into a position where they have to vote on their campaign promises, or break them to stand with their party. If they break them, they will be 1 term Senators in this climate. Given the exit poll analysis of this election, the Senate Dems are going to play ball on the issues I talked about above, or face more voter anger in 2 years, it's that simple.

If Obama goes veto crazy over this legislative agenda, he'll greatly diminish his chances of re-election, make the Republicans look like heroic underdogs fighting the man, and make the Democrats look like obstructionists all at the same time.

Don't forget we will be called racist every ten minutes or so for defying his greatness.

PoliCon
11-03-2010, 09:07 PM
Malloc - if they compromise over the healthcare bill in any way - they're in deep shit. The WHOLE thing needs to go - lock stock and barrel. If we leave just one sliver of it in place it will do what all government programs do - EXPAND. You're right on most of the rest of your suggestions but dead wrong on this one. Rest assured the farther to left the GOP goes the more pissed off they're going to make the base - and they better know that it's the base that gets them through the primaries.

malloc
11-03-2010, 10:37 PM
Malloc - if they compromise over the healthcare bill in any way - they're in deep shit. The WHOLE thing needs to go - lock stock and barrel. If we leave just one sliver of it in place it will do what all government programs do - EXPAND. You're right on most of the rest of your suggestions but dead wrong on this one. Rest assured the farther to left the GOP goes the more pissed off they're going to make the base - and they better know that it's the base that gets them through the primaries.

They can't repeal the health care bill though. I have a better chance of a Megan Fox/Eliza Dushku sandwich than a full repeal bill has of making it through the Senate[1], and even then Obama will veto it. On second thought though, I think the republicans should put up a full repeal bill, and fight like hell to get it through, and force the Democrats to outright reject it. That will just raise more voter anger among independents and moderate Democrats, but when all that fails, they have a real shot at taking down the mandate which will collapse the whole Obamacare scheme.

Trust me, I hope I have to eat my words on this, and I hope Senate Dems are so wild eyed scared they just follow Boehner's lead and put through a repeal bill to get vetoed, then override the veto, but I just don't see that happening until we get a better hold on the Senate.


[1]Chances of a Megan Fox/Eliza Dushku sandwich notwithstanding, the chances of a repeal bill making it through Senate can increase significantly if Rossi pulls off WA. I'm not holding my breath.

malloc
11-03-2010, 10:44 PM
Don't forget we will be called racist every ten minutes or so for defying his greatness.

By now, out side of leftist circles, I think Republicans are pretty much coated with anti-race-baiting Teflon. Apparently the moderates and independents stopped buying into that B.S. in early 2010.

PoliCon
11-03-2010, 11:26 PM
They can't repeal the health care bill though. I have a better chance of a Megan Fox/Eliza Dushku sandwich than a full repeal bill has of making it through the Senate[1], and even then Obama will veto it. On second thought though, I think the republicans should put up a full repeal bill, and fight like hell to get it through, and force the Democrats to outright reject it. That will just raise more voter anger among independents and moderate Democrats, but when all that fails, they have a real shot at taking down the mandate which will collapse the whole Obamacare scheme.

Trust me, I hope I have to eat my words on this, and I hope Senate Dems are so wild eyed scared they just follow Boehner's lead and put through a repeal bill to get vetoed, then override the veto, but I just don't see that happening until we get a better hold on the Senate.


[1]Chances of a Megan Fox/Eliza Dushku sandwich notwithstanding, the chances of a repeal bill making it through Senate can increase significantly if Rossi pulls off WA. I'm not holding my breath.

You're right - they should every month send up a repeal bill and force the dems and Barry to fight for Obamacare. And as more and more of what that nightmare bill contained is exposed - more and more people will turn against them/him.

malloc
11-03-2010, 11:33 PM
You're right - they should every month send up a repeal bill and force the dems and Barry to fight for Obamacare. And as more and more of what that nightmare bill contained is exposed - more and more people will turn against them/him.

If the independents perceive the GOP to be consuming their time on trying to repeal Obamacare instead of addressing economic issues, that will be spun as ideology over results, and will cost the GOP the independents. So maybe not every month. However, they should make at least one good, well coordinated, well prepared, and hard fought for stand on it between now and 2012 elections.


P.S. Armchair quarterbacking the House is almost as fun as armchair pit chiefing Formula One. :D

Rebel Yell
11-04-2010, 08:20 AM
I agree, Cantor is a much better choice.

I don't know. I saw him on O'Reilly a while back when Laura Ingraham was guest hosting. She had to back him in a corner to get a commitment to fight to repeal or defund the healthcare bill. He kinda comes across as slimy to me. Just my gut feeling.

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 08:24 AM
I don't know. I saw him on O'Reilly a while back when Laura Ingraham was guest hosting. She had to back him in a corner to get a commitment to fight to repeal or defund the healthcare bill. He kinda comes across as slimy to me. Just my gut feeling.

Well that's not good, I'll have to research him more. They have to have a backbone when it comes to socialized medicine repeal!

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 09:07 AM
Socialized Medicine was never pasesd. If you want to "repeal" socialized medicine, the closest you're going to get is Medicare and the Republican party can't win if they upset senior citizens by stripping Medicare/Social Security.


A lot of these new Tea Party Republicans need to be forced to answer certain basic questions, like is Social Security constitutional? Is Medicare a socialist medical system and should it be repealed?

Milly
11-04-2010, 09:18 AM
A lot of these new Tea Party Republicans need to be forced to answer certain basic questions, like is Social Security constitutional? Is Medicare a socialist medical system and should it be repealed?

They do? Why?

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 09:26 AM
In order to establish how much they are going to "stand up to washington insiders", to determine if they are really just the same-ol' Republicans from years past or if they are real differences. to determine where the line is drawn from the Bush-era Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans.

They ran so hard on protecting to constitution, smaller government, and principles, yet they avoid these very basic questions like the plague.

megimoo
11-04-2010, 09:31 AM
In order to establish how much they are going to "stand up to washington insiders", to determine if they are really just the same-ol' Republicans from years past or if they are real differences. to determine where the line is drawn from the Bush-era Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans.

They ran so hard on protecting to constitution, smaller government, and principles, yet they avoid these very basic questions like the plague.Your party lost Bozo.Go away,return to your pit in DU hell or was it NU ?

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 09:42 AM
Alright let's sit back and see how long it takes for the "Tea Party" to become completely absorbed into and overtaken by Bush-era establishment Republicans until they are indistinguishable.

You should realize that if this Tea Party thing fizzles out people are going to be pissed.

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 09:43 AM
Your party lost Bozo.Go away,return to your pit in DU hell or was it NU ?

my party? idk what you mean by 'lost' and idk who you think I voted for.

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 09:46 AM
my party? idk what you mean by 'lost' and idk who you think I voted for.

Bullshit! You claim to not be a Dem, but your politics are Obama 101.

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 09:58 AM
I voted for Obama in 2008 but I've been dissapointed continuously and depending on how things go from here a third party might get another vote from me in 2012 so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 10:00 AM
I voted for Obama in 2008 but I've been dissapointed continuously and depending on how things go from here a third party might get another vote from me in 2012 so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What's the matter, is he not commie enough for you?:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 10:02 AM
pretty much

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 10:03 AM
pretty much

I appreciate your honesty.

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 10:05 AM
Michael Moore gave an analysis of the midterm elections, Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party

he is particularly harsh in his criticisms of President Obama, and even raises the possibility of the left pushing a 3rd party challenger to his presidency:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbzi17iEPwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCBFuWjrtIU

I think his analysis is spot on.

NJCardFan
11-04-2010, 10:13 AM
Social Security is unconstitutional. And so is Medicare. However, it's too late to repeal those programs. The best thing to do with those programs is to come up with better ways to run them. Social Security is close to bankruptcy and this is due in part of the hacks in Washington taking that money extracted from our paychecks that's supposed to sit in a little vault somewhere but they couldn't stand all that money sitting around doing nothing so they stole it and spent it. So, wee wee, you OK with that?

Milly
11-04-2010, 10:20 AM
In order to establish how much they are going to "stand up to washington insiders", to determine if they are really just the same-ol' Republicans from years past or if they are real differences. to determine where the line is drawn from the Bush-era Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans.

Last I heard, it was SCOTUS who decided questions of constitutionality, not congress. So the question is moot, isn't it?

They don't need to come out with some statement anyway. By their legislation shall ye know them.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-04-2010, 10:29 AM
If Russ Feingold runs as 3rd party or even challenges him in the primary I''m dropping what support I have left for Obama. One of about three senators I liked (though Rand Paul might get on my good side if he behaves like his father did).

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 10:47 AM
Ron Paul's congressional actions have always brought a smile to my face even though I consider his philosophy to be flawed at the most basic level, almost entirely based on Ayn Rand's terrible books and god-awful Objectivism.

I admire his dedication to principles I just wish he didn't choose the worst principles.

I would actively get out to oppose either of the Paul's if they represented my district/state, but I admire them.

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 11:12 AM
pretty much

After thinking about it I think Obama is every bit as left as you are, what makes you think he could have pushed more through if America has already put the brakes on what he did try to accomplish?
Don't you think you are being a little unrealistic?

Molon Labe
11-04-2010, 11:23 AM
Michael Moore gave an analysis of the midterm elections, Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party

he is particularly harsh in his criticisms of President Obama, and even raises the possibility of the left pushing a 3rd party challenger to his presidency:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbzi17iEPwY

I think his analysis is spot on.

I feel like I'm watching Bushy apologists from 5 years ago. The way they tried to say "I think he meant well and all gee wiz...."

He's still in a daze over what happened with all the Hopey changey bull.
Obama screwed over the people who voted for him.....Believe it! Many of us told you he would.

Moore's main problem is that he can only understand half the truth. Yeah..the nation isn't for the billionaires and such....but he's damn wrong if he thinks the answer is that the people want socialism.

It is also LOL funny when he tries to paint Rand Paul as a kook. He was the poster boy for the tea party for gosh sakes. And I guess it is inevitable that the ad hominem "Kook" label comes out when your disillusionment becomes more apparent and you realize you are losing.

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 11:37 AM
After thinking about it I think Obama is every bit as left as you are, what makes you think he could have pushed more through if America has already put the brakes on what he did try to accomplish?
Don't you think you are being a little unrealistic?

Obama is a centrist at most, often times he is center-right.

There are plenty of actual Democrats in office who are far more liberal than he is (granted, being the President is a totally different job).

I think he could have pushed through real health care reform that addresses the cause of the problems rather than just using extremely expensive bandaids. He could have offered a public option, he could have pulled some strings and pushed it through, but he didn't.

He's sided with Wall Street all too much in these two years, the war in Afghanistan rages on, he's hired Wall Street and Big Finance types who were siding with Republicans before to work within his administration. It's absurd.

I cannot stress this enough: Obama is NOT a socialist, he's not a radical far leftist, he's none of the things that the far-right claims he is (and many people on the left would be happy if he was, but he's not). He hasn't really done much different than the previous administration.

Now, granted, these are extraordinary times and he took office right at the worst time too. He's helped pass many tax cuts and the stimulus package has provided some jobs (that I can see in my community). The economy has stabilized but it's slowly churning forward with the recovery.

The simple fact is that while I think Obama is better than our Republican alternatives (can anyone here really honestly say they'd feel comfortable with Sarah Palin as our Vice President and potential commander-in-chief? McCain is a very old man and we were close to almost having this be a reality.), the truth remains that BOTH of our political parties are almost entirely owned by Big Business, Wall Street, Big Finance, these types. The extremely wealthy top few percent that owns most of our country also owns both of our political parties and we are seeing the result of this.

Obama is playing along with Corporate Elites just like Republicans do, the two parties are not as different as Corporate media makes them out to be. The truth is that conflict and hyperbole draw ratings, ratings draw profits, and profit is the fuel of our corporate media. This means that we hear day after day about Republicans VS Democrats and it's made into a huge spectacle but they aren't really as different as everyone makes them out to be.

Democrats, and Obama are not Far-Left by any stretch of the imagination (with a few exceptions of course).

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 11:40 AM
Moore's main problem is that he can only understand half the truth. Yeah..the nation isn't for the billionaires and such....but he's damn wrong if he thinks the answer is that the people want socialism.


So tell me, you agree that our nation and our political system has been hijacked by various interest groups, correct? You agree that billionaires have extraordinary amounts of power to buy lawmakers and directly control institutions that they own, correct? You agree that the nation and the government should be by the people and for the people?

Why do you think Socialism is not a valid direction to look?

What do you feel is the alternative?

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 11:41 AM
I would like to point out again the study not too long ago (which I posted somewhere on this site) showing that most Americans drastically underestimated the amount of inequality in our nation, and if given a choice would prefer a system similar to Sweden's, a system which they call Democratic Socialism.

Molon Labe
11-04-2010, 11:48 AM
So tell me, you agree that our nation and our political system has been hijacked by various interest groups, correct? You agree that billionaires have extraordinary amounts of power to buy lawmakers and directly control institutions that they own, correct? You agree that the nation and the government should be by the people and for the people?

Why do you think Socialism is not a valid direction to look?

What do you feel is the alternative?

Why do you want me to continue answering what you ignore.

Socialism is an utter abomination of natural rights. Theft by force or threat of use of violence.

I'll say this one last time. Everyone should be a Socialist................in their heart. You may not force someone to comply with the system and call that freedom.



You have no clue what freedom is and what the U.S. origninal liberty concepts really is all about. :(

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 12:15 PM
Why do you want me to continue answering what you ignore.

Socialism is an utter abomination of natural rights. Theft by force or threat of use of violence.

I'll say this one last time. Everyone should be a Socialist................in their heart. You may not force someone to comply with the system and call that freedom.



You have no clue what freedom is and what the U.S. origninal liberty concepts really is all about. :(

I assume you are thinking of more authoritarian forms of Socialism such as in the Soviet Union (of course especially under the rule of Stalin).

In this case there is surely a conflict between the western liberal-democratic notions of Freedom and the sort of Freedom secured by those living in authoritarian socialist states.

We could even question the starting point of our system and ask why is democracy and private ownership of means of production considered to be Absolute rights of some sort?

I am a fan of democracy but you can always ask which would be better: being able to choose between two crooks who'll rob you blind or having a benevolent and just dictator? As President Bush said, things would be much easier if he were a dictator. Some will still say that being able to choose between two bad options is better than being forced into a good option. Some will point out that a lack of a democratic structure (even in the most benevolent of intentions) can lead to terrible people gaining power and holding it.

Some people despite all this would prefer a Dictatorship of the Proletariat where the majority of people, working class and poor people together dictate the direction of the nation through some head.

However, the closest thing America will get to in any stretch of the imagination is what already exists (and with success) in the Western world with Western Culture. Democratic Socialism isn't theft, it isn't property seizure, it's when the majority of working people decide to invest in themselves using the Government (which they don't see as the enemy, instead it is THEIR government, it serves them according to their interests) . They pay higher taxes (this is their investment) and push for more egalitarian policies and as a result everyone can get a great education and get jobs and make enough money to live a comfortable middle class life, with lots of paid vacation and benefits, health care and everyone has big ass guns and ammo. This is a nation of people decided to make the government work for them, and planning collectively for their future and it's working out great.

Does that sound so horrible? Yes their system has contradictions of it's own, but not like ours.

Pushing for things like Universal Health Care or Affordable Education does not mean we have to strip people of fundamental rights or usher in authoritarianism, it can be done as long as people stop being so violently ideology-driven. It's time for McCarthyism to end and for us to put the well being and prosperity of our nation, for future generations, as the most important goal, not protecting some abstract notions that wealthy people made up so we won't demand our government back.

Molon Labe
11-04-2010, 01:21 PM
I assume you are thinking of more authoritarian forms of Socialism such as in the Soviet Union (of course especially under the rule of Stalin).

In this case there is surely a conflict between the western liberal-democratic notions of Freedom and the sort of Freedom secured by those living in authoritarian socialist states.

We could even question the starting point of our system and ask why is democracy and private ownership of means of production considered to be Absolute rights of some sort?

I am a fan of democracy but you can always ask which would be better: being able to choose between two crooks who'll rob you blind or having a benevolent and just dictator? As President Bush said, things would be much easier if he were a dictator. Some will still say that being able to choose between two bad options is better than being forced into a good option. Some will point out that a lack of a democratic structure (even in the most benevolent of intentions) can lead to terrible people gaining power and holding it.

Some people despite all this would prefer a Dictatorship of the Proletariat where the majority of people, working class and poor people together dictate the direction of the nation through some head.

However, the closest thing America will get to in any stretch of the imagination is what already exists (and with success) in the Western world with Western Culture. Democratic Socialism isn't theft, it isn't property seizure, it's when the majority of working people decide to invest in themselves using the Government (which they don't see as the enemy, instead it is THEIR government, it serves them according to their interests) . They pay higher taxes (this is their investment) and push for more egalitarian policies and as a result everyone can get a great education and get jobs and make enough money to live a comfortable middle class life, with lots of paid vacation and benefits, health care and everyone has big ass guns and ammo. This is a nation of people decided to make the government work for them, and planning collectively for their future and it's working out great.

Does that sound so horrible? Yes their system has contradictions of it's own, but not like ours.

Pushing for things like Universal Health Care or Affordable Education does not mean we have to strip people of fundamental rights or usher in authoritarianism, it can be done as long as people stop being so violently ideology-driven. It's time for McCarthyism to end and for us to put the well being and prosperity of our nation, for future generations, as the most important goal, not protecting some abstract notions that wealthy people made up so we won't demand our government back.

I'm a fan of liberty and constitutional government. Not so much democracy.

How about having no crooks who'll rob you blind? Not a benevolent dictator nor a collective "majority" group of workers....anybody. How about no group think?

Some of us believe that it's the centralization of power structures and the unclear separation of government and private life that leads to terrible people gaining and holding power. Some of us believe that if even one person does not prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat then the system is immoral.

And some of us believe, and better yet understand, that supplying universal health care means at someone else's expense thus, loss of liberty.

So places like Sweeden aren't really "free". They've just reached a level of comfort, where they don't question much beyond being taken care of from cradle to grave. Oh but don't be mistaken...there is no withering away of the Upper class...There is still a government class and there is still a "class" that lives far above the working class in control of it all.....just no one cares because they are pacified drooling little "Beta's" hopped up on their Soma.....Brave New World style.

The entire system isn't based on the voluntary distribution of wealth. Therefore it is immoral.

So which parts of Marxism do you reject outright? Because if the answer is none....then everything you've suggested in the OP above is either untrue or cognitive dissonance.

Molon Labe
11-04-2010, 01:35 PM
They fumbled the ball the last time they regained power. My fear is that once in, they'll do the same dumb stuff and do the "reach across the aisle" nonsense. Hopefully now because a lot of candidates who won are more conservative than 1994. This class needs to stick to their principles.

They need to cut spending across the board and yessss... I'm going to say it....to be taken seriously they must filibuster the debt ceiling. If they don't make an attempt to completely roll back federal spending, then they don't believe a word of what they ran on.

They must expose the left for what they are. Deficit spend thrifts. If they don't then they are no different.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-04-2010, 02:01 PM
Ron Paul's congressional actions have always brought a smile to my face even though I consider his philosophy to be flawed at the most basic level, almost entirely based on Ayn Rand's terrible books and god-awful Objectivism.

I admire his dedication to principles I just wish he didn't choose the worst principles.

I would actively get out to oppose either of the Paul's if they represented my district/state, but I admire them.

Well, I oppose what he believes (obviously), but I dont oppose having somebody who is motivated and sincere in those beliefs at the discussion. 100 Bernie Sanders in the senate would be an ideological boon for me, but I'm not sure I'd like it much.

Wei Wu Wei
11-04-2010, 02:35 PM
Here is Ron Paul being awesome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

Lager
11-04-2010, 02:54 PM
Pushing for things like Universal Health Care or Affordable Education does not mean we have to strip people of fundamental rights or usher in authoritarianism, it can be done as long as people stop being so violently ideology-driven. It's time for McCarthyism to end and for us to put the well being and prosperity of our nation, for future generations, as the most important goal, not protecting some abstract notions that wealthy people made up so we won't demand our government back.

It comes thru often in your writings that you believe people would be more acceptable to your thoughts on the role of government, if only they were not "brainwashed" by powerful and monied interest groups or blinded by ideology. You can't fathom that a large part of society may have examined those same ideas; found the flaws; and rejected them outright, all by their lonesome.

Lager
11-04-2010, 03:07 PM
Michael Moore gave an analysis of the midterm elections, Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party

I think his analysis is spot on.

Michael Moore also said in the interview that the one thing democrats have over republicans is popular culture. He went on to describe how Hollywood, rappers, comedians and musicians are all on "their" side, and that they should play to that, and use it to their advantage, because, I guess, he thinks people are basically stupid, and pay more attention to shallow, faddish crap, than serious ideas.

That's a rather adolescent way of thinking. My guess is that Moore is living out his revenge over the kids in school that may have unfortunately made fun of him because of his appearance. He associates those jocks, ROTC guys or whoever did most of the teasing, with republicans and has been striking back ever since. Only now, he has a camera to make them all look foolish and expose their weaknesses and he even gets accepted and lauded by the real cool people in society.

So, consider how credible his "analysis" might be.

Molon Labe
11-04-2010, 03:11 PM
Here is Ron Paul being awesome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0


All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals." - Ron Paul

but when he says ^ is he still awesome?

Be careful. That goes against everything Marx stood for.