feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Finally, a responsible Republican speaks out.

(26 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by Chris_taylor
  • Latest reply from NoParty

  1. The information isn't anything new. However the person behind it is a former Republican Party officer from Delaware.

    http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/dear-boehner#.TiYHA8q56AU.facebook

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 08:46 PM #
  2. paulwalker

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,235

  3. From the article:

    "In the Book of Genesis, God famously asked, “Cain, where is your brother Abel?” This question still resonates today — it reminds us of our duty to care for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the most marginalized elements in society. Does the Republican Party no longer see any role for government in providing for these groups?"

    Interesting that he calls himself a conservative, yet plays the class-envy card. And is he implying the Republican party is going to abolish all social programs? Once again, this is not a conservative Republican tactic, but a Democrat tactic that is played out every election cycle--that the Republicans will be starving grandma and grandpa. Lastly, he claims it is "our" duty to care for the poor, etc., yet he wants to target "the wealthy," or top 1%. (Note that he doesn't mention how much in actual dollars he can squeeze out of them, or what will become of those upon whom that money is now spent).

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 09:49 PM #
  4. "but a Democrat tactic that is played out every election cycle--that the Republicans will be starving grandma and grandpa. "

    The same Republican tactics are played out every election year as well saying we need smaller government and the dems will gut our military and take away our guns.

    When are both sides going to quite the more extreme positions and really meet in the middle where we can get things done?

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 10:04 PM #
  5. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,921

    I don't think they ever will in our current political climate.

    The damage has been done. Movement type politics will be pitted against dollars, lots of dollars.

    That is where the lines are.

    There will be no middle, only a pull in some direction, dictated by either the people or the money, and managing that pull by the ones that do not have control.

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 10:11 PM #
  6. Then we have completely sold out by that definition.

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 11:19 PM #
  7. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,921

    Absolutely!!

    Back when I was writing here about Citizens United, and the impact of corporations as people, this is exactly what I was trying to convey.

    Perhaps when it hurts more, people will find it in themselves to actually do the work to find common ground, and act on that for their mutual best interest.

    We are not there right now. It will hurt worse.

    So, I personally am taking steps to mitigate that, because it's coming. This will escalate, and it will cost us, and I've seen it before. Sometimes the cost must be paid before people are motivated to really start thinking things through.

    The tricky part is how well they manage that pain and cost. If it's done too slowly, the returns won't be optimal, can't have that. Done too quickly, and there would be outright rebellion. Done in a managed way?

    Golden, we will pay the max, potentially never reaching a tipping point. Could really happen. We are on the way right now.

    This cycle is a dry run to see where the lines are. Think of it as a productivity review. The existing playbook has done very well, but the pie is diminishing now, gains are harder to come by, returns less sexy.

    It's a lot like that oil field that gets harder and harder to extract from.

    After some consideration, I think it's been determined that we are still overly placated, and that's nothing but opportunity! So, it's a ramp up, and some choice moves to solidify the longer term things NOW, before they are more costly later on.

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 11:35 PM #
  8. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,240

    Reagan is supposed to be the right-wing hero of most conservatives - and yet, in the link Paul posted, Reagan makes it quite clear what he would think of these morons in the Tea Party today. I'd love to hear them try to explain how their Hero could think so little of them.

    Posted on July 19, 2011 - 11:45 PM #
  9. Yes, let's invoke the great Ronald Reagan:

    Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

    Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence

    There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.

    I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority.

    Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 11:19 AM #
  10. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,915

    "I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority."

    Of course, that quote is as much in error today as when St. Ronnie Raygun first uttered it. What does the preamble to the Constitution actually say? In case you forgot:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    It doesn't say they wanted "a minimum of government authority," it says that they wanted a BETTER government authority. It's one of the RWNJ/TeaBagger myths that the Founding Fathers were working to "throw off the shackles of government." They wanted a government of their own devices and choosing. There's a huge difference.

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 11:41 AM #
  11. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,010

    Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence

    With a big chunk of people on welfare being children and babies, especially unwanted babies, this isn't gonna happen.

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 11:45 AM #
  12. ""I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority."

    Of course, that quote is as much in error today as when St. Ronnie Raygun first uttered it. What does the preamble to the Constitution actually say? In case you forgot:"

    How is that "in error"? He was referring to what he believed about what Americans wanted. He wasn't referring to the Constitution.

    But I think since then, more people do want to be taken care of by the government, and see it as mommy and daddy. Hopefully there is still a majority who believe more in the people, self-reliance, and the private sector, than in Big Brother, handouts, and government manipulation of the economy.

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 02:08 PM #
  13. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,870

    This question still resonates today — it reminds us of our duty to care for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the most marginalized elements in society.

    Which the CONer right doesn't do!

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 02:28 PM #
  14. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,870

    Reagan is supposed to be the right-wing hero of most conservatives - and yet, in the link Paul posted, Reagan makes it quite clear what he would think of these morons in the Tea Party today. I'd love to hear them try to explain how their Hero could think so little of them.

    With Reagan's economic policies being most of why we have the problems we do at least Uncle Ronnie had some smarts.

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 02:30 PM #
  15. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,000

    "It doesn't say they wanted "a minimum of government authority," it says that they wanted a BETTER government authority."

    It also DOESN'T say that the government has to be involved in EVERY aspect of our lives.

    "Better" is a very subjective term. Your definition of "Better" is probably not the same as mine and mine is probably not the same as the next guy.

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 08:18 PM #
  16. RadioBuggie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,691

    Yes - Ronnie WAS spotty, but he was a great earthling - at 'reassuring'...

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 08:27 PM #
  17. I was reassured by Ronald Reagan..yes..but mostly , every time I saw him make a speech...I kept thinking about 20 Mule Team Boraxo soap and...Death Valley Days...Boraxo Soap ( and my grandfather who used Boraxo all the time) and Death Valley and Ronald Reagan with a White Hat on his head....doing his commercials...the great communicator he was ....

    I slept better at night from 1981 to 1989 !

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 08:52 PM #
  18. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,010

    I slept better at night from 1981 to 1989 !

    Unless you were aboard an airliner, or were trying to manage your retirement budget, or were coming down with a mysterious disease . . .

    Posted on July 20, 2011 - 11:43 PM #
  19. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,915

    "It also DOESN'T say that the government has to be involved in EVERY aspect of our lives.

    "Better" is a very subjective term. Your definition of "Better" is probably not the same as mine and mine is probably not the same as the next guy."

    What does it ACTUALLY say? "In order to form a more perfect union..." That's pretty straightforward to me. I suppose that the semantics over "more perfect" can be bandied about, but what CANNOT be disputed is the fact that the Founding Fathers completely intended to create a new government. You'll have to track down the actual language in the Constitution where they talked about "minimal government" for me. I haven't been able to find it.

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 08:11 AM #
  20. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,921

    What they sought is government that works, adding value to our lives, not exploiting us or enslaving us.

    That doesn't mean small, or big. It means it works for us, and the reason many of us are less than pleased at the state of government has nothing to do with it's overall size. It has everything to do with corporations codified into people, and the impact of that on our civics.

    Essentially, they are stripping the protections the government has to offer, because we shit more cash at a lower overhead that way.

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 08:56 AM #
  21. "not exploiting us or enslaving us"

    And that's where we are now. "Some of us" want to throw off the shackles of government. We've had enough of its "protection."

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 09:04 AM #
  22. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,227

    If the shackles of government are just too much for you to handle, move to Haiti where there is no government to shackle you and report back to us how much better it is there than here.

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 09:45 AM #
  23. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,921

    Which shackles, and how will it benefit you, and your peers?

    What bad things are happening right now that have a material impact on your quality of life F&B.

    Compare and contrast those things with the impact of business on the same? What benefits will we see, and where is the support for those?

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 01:24 PM #
  24. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,304

    They wanted a representative government, not monarchs or dictators.

    Speaking of "shackles," when I think of that term, I think of the people in Plymouth colony who were put into the stocks to be ridiculed by their fellow townspeople.

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 01:51 PM #
  25. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,870

    I slept better at night from 1981 to 1989 !

    How about from 2000 to 2008. UGH!

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 08:55 PM #
  26. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,870

    "not exploiting us or enslaving us"

    And that's where we are now.

    Thanks Uncle Ronnie and DUHbya for growing the Federal Government by leaps and bounds while they were in office. Way to go guys!!!!

    Posted on July 21, 2011 - 08:58 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.