Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Obama ran on "change".
My question was about the fractured Dem party and what they did right to take power from the Reps.
What you think the Reps are now failing to do to get power back.

"Do nothing and let the public watch Republican dogma fail miserably" ?

Farmerkev wrote:

Obama ran on "change".
My question was about the fractured Dem party and what they did right to take power from the Reps.
What you think the Reps are now failing to do to get power back.

Cheney/Palin 2012!!!!!

IIRC, the dems did jack smurf and we made fun of them, too.

Mustapha Mond wrote:

IIRC, the dems did jack smurf and we made fun of them, too.

Pretty much the way I remember it too.
People got sick of the Reps mismanagement and voted them out just like they got sick of the Dems and voted them out before that.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pretty much the way I remember it too.
People got sick of the Reps mismanagement and voted them out just like they got sick of the Dems and voted them out before that.

...though just two years earlier the public failed to reelect a republican president.  The 'throw out the bums' mentality fell squarely upon those in power.

I think the current situation of the GOP is a bit different, as the party has rapidly lost power in the northeast and southwest.

Yeah, except Schumer and Emanuael wisely recruited moderates to run in a 50-state strategy, something I don't see Republicans being able to do because... well, there are no moderates.  Or just 3.  And, in fact, they're mocked by the GOP activist base.  Loudly. 

Fairly big difference, albeit not policy based.

As far as the "socialist" nonsense I'll buy into the grandstanding of Republicans and our resident cheerleader Kevin when they have the courage of conviction to actually CAMPAIGN AND RUN on nothing less than the complete elimination of Social Security and Medicare. Until that day then Republicans are as socialist as Democrats, just huge smurfing hypocrites and fond of playground taunts more befitting a 7 year old.

bedstuy wrote:

Yeah, except Schumer and Emanuael wisely recruited moderates to run in a 50-state strategy, something I don't see Republicans being able to do because... well, there are no moderates.  Or just 3.  And, in fact, they're mocked by the GOP activist base.  Loudly. 

Fairly big difference, albeit not policy based.

As far as the "socialist" nonsense I'll buy into the grandstanding of Republicans and our resident cheerleader Kevin when they have the courage of conviction to actually CAMPAIGN AND RUN on nothing less than the complete elimination of Social Security and Medicare. Until that day then Republicans are as socialist as Democrats, just huge smurfing hypocrites and fond of playground taunts more befitting a 7 year old.

Well put.

Shouldn't that be "democrat social party"? To be Bubba consistent?

Ho down is how Bubba likes 'em.

zeitgeist wrote:

spike wrote:

1936 Quote from HP Lovecraft on the Repub party.

"As for the Republicans—how can one regard seriously a frightened, greedy, nostalgic huddle of tradesmen and lucky idlers who shut their eyes to history and science, steel their emotions against decent human sympathy, cling to sordid and provincial ideals exalting sheer acquisitiveness and condoning artificial hardship for the non-materially-shrewd, dwell smugly and sentimentally in a distorted dream-cosmos of outmoded phrases and principles and attitudes based on the bygone agricultural-handicraft world, and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-distribution would contravene some vague and mystical 'American heritage'…) utterly contrary to fact and without the slightest foundation in human experience? Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead."

    * Letter to C.L. Moore (August 1936), quoted in "H.P. Lovecraft, a Life" by S.T. Joshi, p. 574

Wow.  The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Yep, thats why I'm always curious what the driver of that pick-up truck with the bush/Cheney sticker on it looks like (there's usually a bunch of ribbons on the truck as well). I always expect to see some mentally challenged guy but its usually somebody with an angry scrawl across their face with a cross hanging from their rear view mirror, or something similar.

Wow, you guys really painted a picture.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

One the the Democratic party didn't do was resort to petty name calling.

No?

iSeamas wrote:

Why don't they just make their lives easier and just call the democratic party "evil doers"?

Why are socialist ideas automatically branded “evil” or “bad?”  There are actually allot of pros to socialist ideas.  What we were fighting during the wars was forced-socialism by dictators. A thing that was misrepresented by the propaganda.  There are currently many benefits of U.S. socialism as it is. Libraries, schools, firefighters, the ARMY, and many other US institutions are socialized. What country do the republicans think this is?

I do understand though that it is that impression the republicans wish to convey. That is to say, that they want people to think democrats and socialist ideas are evil.  But really even if I were rich, or rather when I am rich, I would rather do my part to help the poor have education and health care and things, instead of being selfish about it. 

Beyond that, on the health-care note. The republicans claim that bureaucrat would get involved in health care decisions , and that would be bad? How is it any worse than having decisions made by the current individuals who aren’t doctors, aren’t patients, aren’t public servants, and aren’t accountable to the public, doctors, or patients?