# Is it me or have the Rebulicans....



## José Herring (Feb 7, 2012)

....gone totally bat shit nuts. My son has a saying, "he's not just nuts, but a whole bag of trail mix". Watching these Republican primaries reminds me of that saying.

One week Mitt is up. Next Newt. They kill each other. Beating each other over the head with their gazillion dollar super pacs. Now Santorum is looking to sweep tonight. Something tells me that those people are mightily confused.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 7, 2012)

I wonder if those voting for Santorum know they're voting for a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter.


----------



## Udo (Feb 7, 2012)

josejherring @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> ....gone totally bat [email protected]#t nuts. My son has a saying, "he's not just nuts, but a whole bag of trail mix". Watching these Republican primaries reminds me of that saying.


Why are you surprised? Even research funded by the conservative Bush Administration in 2003 came to the conclusion that conservatism is a mental disorder. The result of the $1.2m research project titled: "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" was summarized as:

"Conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".


----------



## FredrikJonasson (Feb 8, 2012)

Udo @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Even research funded by the conservative Bush Administration in 2003 came to the conclusion that conservatism is a mental disorder. The result of the $1.2m research project titled: "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" was summarized as:
> 
> "Conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".



Sounds a bit harsh, but I absolutely can imagine there's a grain of truth in there. And I actually heard on the news for around a week ago, that it's more COMMON that people with preconceptions stick with conservative parties. The research was done here in Sweden I think. 

For myself I wondered what is going on in the states when whoever-of-them-it-was wanted to make the moon an US state. The ignorance and populism in that declaration is just stunning! Give me a break.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 8, 2012)

The weirdest thing about the four top Republican candidates is that they all claim to support the "personhood amendment" position that would make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and would also ban hormonal birth control. (Even "libertarian" Ron Paul supports it!) This was on the ballot in Colorado in 2008 and 2010 and it failed by more than 50 percentage points. It then went on the ballot in redder-than-red Mississippi and failed by more than 15 points.

I guess the candidates know that in order to win the primary, they can't lose the intolerant dogmatism vote...


----------



## José Herring (Feb 8, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> I guess the candidates know that in order to win the primary, they can't lose the intolerant dogmatism vote...



I guess this is true, but what baffles me is at what point does somebody running for president think that he's gone too far in trying to capture the fringe wacko vote. Huntsman is a good example. Bailed out early because a) he knew he couldn't go there and b) the wacko republican "base"( which is now the new republican mainstream) knew he wouldn't go there.

Not only that, but its like each week republicans are tossing around candidates as if to say, "I'm neurotic and I will prove it". Santorum is a nut cake and he trounced on the two other nut cakes last night. I kind of feel nationally that republicans are trying to elect the most unelectable candidate they can find.

I ran into a republican friend the other day. He's not wacko (just has some weird political views) and even he was grubbing about Mitt Romney's offshore bank accounts. He's tuned into all those right wing websites and I can tell this is really bothering the base, who is largely poor and who think that offshore=criminal behavior. Which I kind of agree with.

So as it stands, looking like Romney's done, Newt is toast, leaving Santorum. Heaven forbid any of these guys turn out to win an election ever again. Which brings me to another point. Have you ever seen such a parade of failed politicians that is the republican line up? Every single one of them have totally failed in politics. I'm all for second chances, but seems to me that you kind of don't think that your second chance should be running the most powerful country in the world. Maybe start smaller and work your way up again. You know. Be a little humble. Realized you failed and that maybe you could learn a thing or two, before trying to run for president.

I'm venting but the extreme arrogance of these guys is getting on my nerves. Mitt, failed governor of Mass., then decides that what he really needs to be president is to be a venture capitalist. Chopping up companies. Hiding money off shore. Hiding his taxes. Investing in Burger King, ect.... What makes him think that he's qualified? He's an idiot in all other areas except for money. Can't talk to people. Can't work with people. Hates poor people. Has no experience with minorities.... Wtf!!!!

Newt, the most offensive loud mouth ever. Resigned in disgrace as speaker. Hasn't done much but make a little money since. Then all of sudden decides that he's qualified to lead the country? Give me a break.

Santorum, actually the most successful of them all. But becomes this uber bible banger. Has views so conservative that they would make my grandma cringe. Hasn't displayed any leadership qualities. Not a good orator, doesn't seem like he really understands much of anything other than his religious views. Decides that he's qualified to run for pres. Arrrrg!!!

If I were a republican I'd be hanging my head in shame. I know that I can't hardly look at republicans without feeling shame and thinking they're crazy. What happened to the Bob Doles, Jack Kemps of the republican party? Guys that you could at least respect and who you may not have been in total agreement with all the time, but certainly where not crazy. The party is on a destructive path of the crazier the better.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 8, 2012)

I am not suggesting that Rick Santorum would be a good choice for President... I believe he is far too conservative, and fortunately, he thinks a doom&gloom campaign is the trick, which will quickly put an end to that. (Oddly enough, I wasn't nearly as concerned when he was a legislator. It wasn't great being a citizen of the state that sent him to DC, but on the other hand I think it is good to have all views represented, just so long as the folks at the fringes remain in the minority!)

That said, I am wondering what the various name-calling brings to the discourse. It's bad enough that the candidates attack each other with vicious, and largely unfounded insults... but can't we be better than them?

Does anyone really benefit by comparing Santorum to the infamous search result?


----------



## midphase (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill,

Yes...Santorum deserves that and more. He is not representing a fair view of the population. He is breeding hate and intolerance with statements that have no place in the national discourse, particularly coming from a "representative of the people."

He has proven time and time and again to be a narrow minded bigot who is more than happy to shift the rules when they apply to his benefit (or to his wife getting an abortion) while spewing misinformation and hatred about the gay community.

He is a disgrace to this great country, and the people who continue to support him are a disgrace to the spirit of a nation built on diversity and tolerance.

http://spreadingsantorum.com/


----------



## midphase (Feb 8, 2012)

And BTW...the Republicans can thank the likes of the Tea Party, Fox News and Glenn Beck for the sorry state of nominees this year.

Thanks to those fringe lunatics inciting the ignorant masses with their 'far-right-is-not-far-enough' venom and their nonsense about Obama's radical Kenyan agenda; they find themselves in 2012 with a bunch of nut job unelectable candidates.

How weird is it that the sanest of the bunch is Ron Paul???? And he's crazy!


----------



## José Herring (Feb 8, 2012)

wst3 @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> I am not suggesting that Rick Santorum would be a good choice for President... I believe he is far too conservative, and fortunately, he thinks a doom&gloom campaign is the trick, which will quickly put an end to that. (Oddly enough, I wasn't nearly as concerned when he was a legislator. It wasn't great being a citizen of the state that sent him to DC, but on the other hand I think it is good to have all views represented, just so long as the folks at the fringes remain in the minority!)
> 
> That said, I am wondering what the various name-calling brings to the discourse. It's bad enough that the candidates attack each other with vicious, and largely unfounded insults... but can't we be better than them?
> 
> Does anyone really benefit by comparing Santorum to the infamous search result?



I'm not into the denigrating name calling. I think its childish and stupid and puts liberals in a bad light.

It's the man and his views that I find personally appalling. Last week I was thinking that he was too far to the right to get any serious attention. I thought after Florida that he would back out. But, noooooo!!! He's riding high in that party of bigots with a 3 state sweep. What's the matter with this people. Santorum makes Reagan look like a free love pot smoking hippy in comparison. The party is so far gone that they don't even realize that Obama is more conservative than Reagan was. This lunge to the right is shifting the entire political spectrum. And, the further right Obama goes, in these people's mind he's the socialist liberal, then they feel that they have to go farther to the right yet. In modern day politics views that use to be extremely reactionary are now considered sort of centrist.

I guess what gets me is that the conservative movement use to be about preserving the original intent of the constitution. They claim to be the standard bearers of the legacy of guys like Thomas Jefferson. But in all truth they make our founding fathers look like Jimmy Carter. The ideas of fairness, equality, lifting the poor all get tossed aside and we end up with these stupid insipid hicks trying to run our nation.


----------



## IFM (Feb 8, 2012)

I usually try to avoid political discussions but as I would vote either party depending on who is better I just can't believe these wackos are my choices on the republican side. On one hand it is entertaining to see what kind of crazy thing will be said next, but scary that these are elected officials! YIKES!


----------



## José Herring (Feb 8, 2012)

Dragonwind @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> I usually try to avoid political discussions but as I would vote either party depending on who is better I just can't believe these wackos are my choices on the republican side. On one hand it is entertaining to see what kind of crazy thing will be said next, but scary that these are elected officials! YIKES!



I agree. I try to vote for the candidate and not the party. I use to be so democrat in New York, that I would not even look at the candidates. I would just flick the switch to democrat and pull the lever. :lol: But, after the disaster that was Mayor David Dinkins, I started to think that maybe that wasn't such a good idea. So next election I voted for Giuliani and he was an excellent mayor despite being a Republican so I started to be more selective.

I love our Pres, but I always look to the other party to find an alternative. But, there is no alternative this time around. Last time at least we had McCain on the other side and while, I would never vote for the man, I do think if he had won that he would have been at least OK as pres perhaps even pretty good. This time though....YIKES, is a good word. I tried to get into Romney but every time he opens his mouth I like him less. His handlers finally told him to shut up. But, with this stunning crushing he'll have to open his mouth again. Any more comments like, "I'm not concerned with the poor" just confirm what I've felt all along. Condescending rich white bastard. He should make it into a bumper sticker.

Good thing is that all Obama has to do to win reelection, provided there's not some sort of world ending catastrophe, is run on a "At least I'm not crazy" platform :lol:


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 8, 2012)

I wish they'd just get rid of the mouthpieces and have debates between the Corporations, Banks and Billionaires who run our politics.

We could skip the insulting process as it's a waste of life and time.
They are all liars, and will pole dance, mislead you according to what their instructed to say.

Personally I'd rather see Goldman Sachs, GE, Soros, Buffett, AFL-CIO and the Chinese on stage instead of Obama or Axelrod.

Then on the other side have the Evangelicals, Koch Brothers, Mosanto, DuPont, Coal and Oil CEO's instead of any of the current GOP candidates.

Then have the NSA style Brainscan machines on all of them with someone who'll ask important questions instead of what Church you went to, who did you recieve Oral sex from, etc.

It's a sad joke, but just in case I am wrong after researching the various powers and their investments, I am participating, but I want all new Freshmen from both sides.
At least if they are corrupt, it will cost the Federal Reserve less money, which is always handed off to the taxpayers.....

After so many years of scandalous self serving elites, we have to build someone a railroad to their winery, or an Airport just for them, or a new Bridge where only they profit...
Newer freshmen would probably accept a new car and college for their kids, etc.
Much less money than the current wealthy elites are costing us..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2012)

> I try to vote for the candidate and not the party.



The two are inseparable. Republicans all have one thing in common: their ideas are built on a foundation that's totally detached from reality. No intellectual backing exists for what they claim to believe in.

There are Democrats I do and don't care for, but it's almost impossible for there to be a good Republican. Worse, any positives in a Republican's past are used against him by his own party (or her own party).

That is all.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2012)

Just kidding - it's not all.

Rick Santorum is running for ayatollah, not president.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 8, 2012)

It really doesn't matter what the issue is - they're on the wrong side of it. Jose is right that they've gone nuts - but that happened years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-gops-new-push-to-defang-the-cfpb/2012/02/08/gIQA1DrfzQ_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html)


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 8, 2012)

wst3 @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Does anyone really benefit by comparing Santorum to the infamous search result?



I do. And often on a daily or bi-daily basis.


----------



## SvK (Feb 8, 2012)

Obama FTW


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 9, 2012)

chimuelo @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Personally I'd rather see Goldman Sachs on stage instead of Obama or Axelrod.



you are. its called mitt romney.

yes santorum is round the bend. i told you all that already.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Feb 9, 2012)

It's all relative isn't it? Obama had to shift to the right to get the financial backing to run for president, so the Republicans have felt it necessary to shift further to the right to compensate. Hence they've ended up in Batshit County.

I have to say that I find the current UK government fairly repellant, but if I lived in the US and one of these candidates became president I'd probably feel tempted to leave the country out of sheer embarassment.


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2012)

I have to say it is nice to live in a state that buffers me against the nuttiness of some of the other states.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 9, 2012)

Guys c'mon. This is a rigged game meant to extend the millions the media makes as every month a new guy is the front runner.
Ron Paul will sweep the next states and the game will cost millions more to keep going. Its actually a comedy show that benefits the economy.
And it is funny, but the comical aspects are that like in Pro Wrestling, these people actually clap and cheer and believe what they are hearing.
I never believed that stuff as a kid but it was funny and entertaining.

Eventually we will be left with some freak show candidate that will make Obama look like a sucess story.

Those who turn out to vote in these primaries are zealots and hardly represent the 200 million who don't want to miss work for some silly fake game.

The results will be Obama as a war hawk wanting to invade Iran in the name of Human Rights, and another guy who will repeal Gay marriage and make morning prayers mandatory.

Then when it's over, no promises will be kept and Congress will blame the Senate, the Senate will blame the President and the shell game moves along thanks to foreign and domestic investment.

Just give me more freebies and gifts as my Unions spent a fortune on Wall Street, and Obama, and payback so far has been great.
First time ever we had a President who returned the investment in a timely fashion.

I'd be a fool to vote for any GOP member, but I will vote for all freshmen as we need cheaper politicians to corrupt. The current wealthy Liberals are just so high maintenance. Besides, the billions they have made during the housing crisis can be spent if they retire and have time to enjoy what they " earned " while in office....


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 9, 2012)

TheUnfinished @ Thu Feb 09 said:


> I have to say that I find the current UK government fairly repellant, but if I lived in the US and one of these candidates became president I'd probably feel tempted to leave the country out of sheer embarassment.



do you live in the uk? i just left the uk recently having worked there for 25 plus years mostly for GS. i saw a few governments come and go while there. the current regime has no chance because its a coalition right? the leader is an appeaser. he will not last in his own party should the next election go close again and it results in hung parliaments once again. they will not stand for two failures in a row. i bet everyone there is really pleased to be taking orders from the european court of human rights yes?

should the labor win the next election most of the people that earn the money there will certainly leave and all theyll be left with is trying to get growth out of suckers on benefits. look at greece and portugal. just be thankful the uk aint in the euro. trust me that dog dont hunt! :lol: :lol: :lol: 

labor wins your next election you all go broke and instantly and I MEAN INSTANTLY your bond yields will go through the roof. the bond traders will take a real dim view of a labor government in your country because of your debt levels. your debt levels will struggle to show any real positive headway over the next 3 years with an appeaser leading the way. thats not just an opinion. thats the way it will be. either way people will make money. and thats not a moral position because itll happen whether we make bets or not. labor wins and the city exits stage right. theyll move out and go somewhere else make no mistake. I know. again its not an opinion its certain. unimaginable in the US. the bond traders look at that labor leader now and they shit themselves never mind if actually starting making decisions as leader. wow thats almost a freak show youve there.

republican or democrats win ours its a lot less of an economic issue regardless of what liberals scream.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Feb 9, 2012)

Well, David Cameron remains pretty popular with the Conservative Party (it's everyone else that doesn't like him) because he's, tragically, the PR-friendly face of the party.

The Labour Party is in dissaray and Ed Milliband IS a weak leader. But I'd happily take him over any of those Republican crazies. A decade of guys like that and I think you'd find America's place on the world stage diminishing quite rapidly.

I can't remember a year that went by without the City threatening to quit the UK if something or other happened, so I'll take that with a slight pinch of salt. Equally, even if Labour did get in they would appease the City again as every government has in the last thirty years.

And as for the Court of Human Rights, they do far more positive things than negative. The US could do with them after Obama signed that new NDAA amendment.


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 9, 2012)

milliband thats right. i couldnt remember his name. its amazing the second you leave a place everything just gets forgotten a couple months later.

milliband wins the next uk election midnight uk time ... you get downgraded by S&P to A- 12.01. in a heartbeat. dont even go there. you wont like it. trust me. you will go broke. there isnt a bond dealer on planet earth that trusts the labor people after their last debacle. its a benefit wet dream and benefits need to be paid for. why do think they went technically bankrupt in the first place? the minute that guy goes against the unions that put him there and he would have to..... :lol: 

theres a dark place in me that would actually like to observe that scenario from afar. :lol: :lol:


----------



## José Herring (Feb 9, 2012)

Just for kicks I watched a debate between the lib dems, tories and labor party. Funny how your view of politics gets skewed. GB most conservative party(Tories) would be considered down right commies by American standards. It was funny to watch.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 9, 2012)

Based on 2012 Republican values, Benjamin Franklin would be to the left of Vladmir Lenin. 

Publicly funded libraries are for drugged out hippie communes, not a market-based economy! 

Taxpayer-subsidized fire departments will put private insurance out of business. If you can't afford your own firemen, you deserve to have your house burn down!

That commie Franklin must have had his brain in the jar when lightning struck! Well, what do you expect. The old man spent time in ...France (eew!) when that long-haired peacenik should have been on 'Merican soil, wearing a uniform and fighting a war.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Feb 10, 2012)

George Caplan @ Fri Feb 10 said:


> its a benefit wet dream and benefits need to be paid for. why do think they went technically bankrupt in the first place?


You think the current economic situation in the UK has something to do with the amount spent on benefits? I'd love to see the figures that back that statement up.


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 10, 2012)

josejherring @ Thu Feb 09 said:


> Just for kicks I watched a debate between the lib dems, tories and labor party. Funny how your view of politics gets skewed. GB most conservative party(Tories) would be considered down right commies by American standards. It was funny to watch.



they would. at least this tory party would. what they needed after the last what can only be desribed as your worst 13 year economic cyclical nightmare...was another thatcher. what they got was a beached whale.

they need to carry more guns. :lol:


----------



## Diffusor (Feb 10, 2012)

josejherring @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> ....gone totally bat shit nuts. My son has a saying, "he's not just nuts, but a whole bag of trail mix". Watching these Republican primaries reminds me of that saying.
> 
> One week Mitt is up. Next Newt. They kill each other. Beating each other over the head with their gazillion dollar super pacs. Now Santorum is looking to sweep tonight. Something tells me that those people are mightily confused.



I thought the 2008 Democratic Primaries were just as nutty and hilarious. Cries of racism and chauvinism back and forth, then Obama gets it and then it's the evil racist Republicans against the good Democrats.


----------



## Diffusor (Feb 10, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Just kidding - it's not all.
> 
> Rick Santorum is running for ayatollah, not president.



Yeah Obama is so great and you can basically call him Bush II in continuing most his policies and even furthering them (NDAA hello?). But he's a Democrat and that's ok.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 10, 2012)

Diffusor @ Fri Feb 10 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > ....gone totally bat [email protected]#t nuts. My son has a saying, "he's not just nuts, but a whole bag of trail mix". Watching these Republican primaries reminds me of that saying.
> ...



2008 was just plain fun. The black dude against the white woman. What could be more entertaining than that?

The Republican primary this year is just plain sad. Rich white dudes trying to tear each other apart in their quest for ultimate power. Been there, done that, it's not even good news. :lol: 

No in all seriousness. These guys are just sad. Its clear that even the republican base thinks they're sad. They can't get behind any of them. It's a roller coaster ride. Mitt looks like a criminal. We already know he's a liar. Newt, is Newt. No need for explanation. And Santorum just reminds me of those zealots preaching the end of the world with bible in hand on the street corners. Seriously, if you took his "speeches" and stood on a street corner and recited them out loud, people would think you're crazy. Yet we're subjected to this crap from a guy who wants to be president. He should be committed. If it wasn't for the nice hair cut I think he would be committed. But, since he looks normal people think he's normal. But, he's not. He's a Zealot. Dangerous. The kind of guy that would consider wars in the middle east a Christian crusade.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 10, 2012)

Today, Romney told everybody that he was a "severely conservative governor." 

Um, Governor, "severe" is a word I associate with poverty, famine, disease - and mental retardation. It's never a good thing.

I'm thinking that it would be a "severe" blunder for Romney to become president.


----------



## midphase (Feb 10, 2012)

The only positive thing that might come out of this election cycle is that if the Rebulicans lose so badly and Obama wins in a landslide, perhaps they will realize how far right they have drifted and will attempt to correct their course and give a big overdue F.U. to the tea party (which already seems to have fizzled away).


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 10, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Republicans can thank the likes of the Tea Party, Fox News and Glenn Beck for the sorry state of nominees this year.


This.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 10, 2012)

I love watching Romney go from saying, "I'm the best candidate to beat Obama" to, "I'm not 100% sure I can win this".


----------



## José Herring (Feb 11, 2012)

Now Santorum is leading in the national republican primary polls by 15pts. WTF????

C'mon conservatives. Give us a break! I mean are you people really sitting around the kitchen table talking about how Santorum is the best guy to lead this country?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2012)

> 2008 was just plain fun. The black dude against the white woman. What could be more entertaining than that?



Kidding aside, that was a serious race between two outstanding candidates who debated serious issues, and - silliness like midnight phone call ads aside - it had the effect it was supposed to have: making both candidates stronger because of the competition.

Compare that to the Republican race this year, which is a competition to see who's the biggest asshole in the world. Each candidate's scant positives are used against him: Romney's health insurance, Ron Paul wanting to rationalize our foreign policy, Huntsman being an expert on China and as far as I can see an excellent ambassador...they're much worse than just lightweight, they're a bunch of nasty clowns.

Does anyone seriously believe that Mitt Romney wants to be president so he can fight for the American people? Or ayatollah-wannabee Rick Santorum?

Obama hasn't always been combative enough (although he's been better recently), but I don't think anyone can doubt that his heart is always in the right place.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 11, 2012)

There's a new push by "severe conservatives" to drug test those who receive welfare. Romney was quoted as saying that those who receive "government benefits" should be drug tested.

Come on, Grandma. Gotta give the government a look at your bodily fluids to get your social security check.

Nah. That's not an invasion of privacy. That's the conservative version of "small" government!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 11, 2012)

By the way, I think "severe" is exactly the right word. Conservatism is a social disorder, and Romney is trying to prove that he has the worst case of it.


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 11, 2012)

Well, the conservatives and Republican Party are now the Tea Party. That is what conservative means, and who the GOP adheres to and gives in to. Not every Republican, or every person who considers themselves "conservative", but it is now the definite majority. 

This is why I have asked many times: why do not the conservative/republican/tea party finally outwardly advocate for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps and all social services? Plus the elimination of nearly all government agencies, starting with the two (or three) Rick Parry mentioned, but also include things like the SEC, NTSB, FAA, OSHA, NOAA, etc. Why defend keeping these agencies or programs in any way what so ever? 

Calling for the elimination of these programs and departments would fit their principle, which they seem so obsessed with adhering to, and what they believe that will benefit the country in the long term.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 11, 2012)

snowleopard @ Sat Feb 11 said:


> Well, the conservatives and Republican Party are now the Tea Party. That is what conservative means, and who the GOP adheres to and gives in to. Not every Republican, or every person who considers themselves "conservative", but it is now the definite majority.
> 
> This is why I have asked many times: why do not the conservative/republican/tea party finally outwardly advocate for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps and all social services? Plus the elimination of nearly all government agencies, starting with the two (or three) Rick Parry mentioned, but also include things like the SEC, NTSB, FAA, OSHA, NOAA, etc. Why defend keeping these agencies or programs in any way what so ever?
> 
> Calling for the elimination of these programs and departments would fit their principle, which they seem so obsessed with adhering to, and what they believe that will benefit the country in the long term.



Ummm...'cause they want to win an election?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Feb 12, 2012)

Yeah the anti-birth control stuff is just nuts. Why this is somehow a popular position among presidential candidates just baffles me. Something like 99% of women in the U.S. use birth control...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 12, 2012)

It's called "changing the subject," Andrew. The economy is just starting to possibly think about beginning to turn the corner. If the Republicans can ruin the economy to win the election they will - and no, that's not liberal hype, it's the sad truth - but in the meantime they'd rather talk about stupid nonsense that stupid people will start shouting about.

Yes, this is a mockery of democracy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 13, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp


----------



## midphase (Feb 13, 2012)

I agree with everything that Krugman says...I wish that guy was my BFF.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 13, 2012)

"Blowback" is exactly the right term. The GOP stoked fears and divisions with no regard for the truth for so long that they've now got a rabid pack of pit bulls and no leash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuPPVD--ZIQ


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 13, 2012)

"For example, last year Mr. Santorum made a point of defending the medieval Crusades against the “American left who hates Christendom.” Historical issues aside (hey, what are a few massacres of infidels and Jews among friends?), what was this doing in a 21st-century campaign?"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

thats great.


incidently. its hate christendom. not hates. :shock:


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 13, 2012)

Tom Friedman nails it: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/o...-we-need-a-second-party.html?_r=4&ref=opinion

Just an excerpt, but the entire article needs to be read: 

_"The party has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.

Sorry, but you can’t address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix of hardened positions. "_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 13, 2012)

"incidently. its hate christendom. not hates"

I think it's a quote.

***

Thomas Friedman is basically right, of course, but I'd be curious what he thinks a reinvented Republican party would stand for. Because I see their problem as being deeper: everything they claim to believe in has failed when it was tried in the real world. They don't really believe in "free markets" or libertarianism; "small government" just means "screw you I'm okay"; and religious freaks aren't a contingent to build a great party on.

What we really need is for both parties to shift way to the left.


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 17, 2012)

Krugman completely nails it, again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opini ... lfare.html

_"the current G.O.P. majority is the most conservative since 1879"_

_"(People were surprised to learn that) the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives."_

_"...Many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system...44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they 'have not used a government program.'”_


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 17, 2012)

Another great Krugman article for sure.

Here's a funny thing about the four top GOP presidential hopefuls. The GOP doesn't much like the choices, yet the candidates perfectly reflect the nature of the party.

Romney - The core of the party is pro-capital. It's the party of the 0.1%. Romney is the 0.1 percenter in the race. But you can't get elected with 0.1% of the vote, so the GOP uses social manipulation to build a coalition.

Santorum - The most visible social manipulation started after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Nixon employed his Southern strategy. By the Reagan presidency, the Moral Majority expanded the strategy from race to bible belt religion. Santorum represents the group that wants the government to regulate the bedroom.

Gingrich - Don't forget the other GOP social manipulation tactic - fear. Gingrich represents the emotional reactionary part of the party. He's like the guy who chases the neighborhood kids from his yard - mean, fearful, and resentful. If you wonder how a guy who left two sick wives for mistresses could still be in the running, it's because a big part of the GOP likes mean bastards.

Paul - Finally, there is the anti-government part of the party. To them, the Constitution says we can't really have a federal government. It's selfish anti-tax taken to it's extreme conclusion. Ron Paul is the patron saint of this group.

There you have it. The candidates perfectly represent the GOP. Any dissatisfaction they have with the candidates simply reflects the latent dissatisfaction they have with the party itself. It also reflects that the GOP isn't as cohesive a group as it's made out to be. It's a coalition of the greedy, the prudish, the mean, and the unhinged.

What a motley crew.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2012)

Well said - although I think there's a lot of overlap.


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 17, 2012)

Sad, but true. My uncle is a member of that overlap. He's on Social Security and has received Medicare for some 15 years, including three major surgeries. And yet, he's bought the far-right extreme view hook, line and sinker. Constantly fighting with his working-class children, my cousin brought up once that Medicare _is_ the government, and he angrily yelled back, "I paid into that!" as if it were some sort of savings account or private insurance, not realizing if it had not been for Medicare he would be bankrupt several times over and living in a nursing home now, surviving on Medicaid. 

One far-right perception is that they believe if those programs were cut or eliminated, they would get enough tax breaks in return that they could pay for their own health care, retirement, education, etc. But as I showed in the example with my uncle, there's no way he would have saved up the amount of money that he's benefited from the system, no possible way. And most people obviously are in his situation, and not independently wealthy. Nor will they ever be. As Krugman clearly pointed out, if these people actually got what they wished for - drastic cuts or elimination of these social programs - most would be thrown into extreme poverty fairly quickly. 

The other spin is that if these programs were eliminated and people paid for their own retirement, education and health care, this "private" system would boost the economy more. I've never even seen a conservative actually try to do the math on this, because it would lead to obvious disaster, no matter how you spin it. 

Much of the extreme right (now the mainstream Republican party) still comes from people taking Ronald Reagan's comment that "the government is the problem" to the absolute extreme, even though Reagan himself abandoned his most drastic government cuts, and actually raised taxes, as Bruce Bartlett has pointed out time and again.


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 18, 2012)

you have to get the public sector smaller than the private sector by a long margin. if you can do that then youll get less years of pain than if you dont. that is simple and proven economics.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 18, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sat Feb 18 said:


> you have to get the public sector smaller than the private sector by a long margin. if you can do that then youll get less years of pain than if you dont. that is simple and proven economics.



Nah, where's the proof of that?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a robust private sector and a robust public sector at the same time. If taxes are fair then the two can help each other quite a bit.

Where it fails is like in Europe and the former Soviet Union, where the government takes over the private sector and then taxes the citizens to death making it impossible to make any real money. That's what's happening in Europe. 

But, this idea that you have to have one or the other is too black and white of a view of the world to be of much use to anybody. Quality schools, public transportation, interstate highways, financial aid to promising students who don't come from money, affordable health care, all these things are just as important( to me even more important) than private sector. Actually many of the public sector was set up and designed to feed the private sector with quality healthy people that can work and be effective and that have enough intelligence to create effective products or provide effective service.

Problems only arise when the government takes over the means of production and distribution of goods and services so that everybody is working for the government. This is a monopoly in the real sense of the word. Then you have socialism and the spectacular photos of parts of Europe burning to the ground is a great example of the eventual end of socialism. People are promised too much and required to contribute too little in return. Where the group is forced to take care of the individual rather than the individual being productive towards the benefit of himself and the group. After all a group is only made up of individuals contributing something of value to other individuals. Any other definition of a group is just pure fantasy. An example of that would be a group of musicians who refuse to play unless the next guy plays. You couldn't really have a music group like that. You'd have anarchy in no time (Greece). Another false group are the capitalist. Those who stab each other in order to get ahead of the next guy. That's another form of anarchy (America). But, if mankind truly understood what a group really was, then there would be no need for too sharp a distinction between public and private sectors. Each member of a society knows that it can only exist by being of value to somebody else. The business mogul relies on the teacher to do his/her job to educate the future work force. The teacher then should receive financial assistance from the business mogul so that she can provide much needed service and material to her students (the future work force), ect....

The idea that the group serves the needs of the individual or that the individual exist only for a group is too simple a calculation to be effective in the real work. They both have to exist for each other or you don't have a group (USSR) and the individuals scatter like cockroaches trying to survive(USA).


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 18, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Feb 18 said:


> George Caplan @ Sat Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > you have to get the public sector smaller than the private sector by a long margin. if you can do that then youll get less years of pain than if you dont. that is simple and proven economics.
> ...



you can but not at the moment. private sectors must be bigger than public. the proof is all over the world. private funds public. thats a simple concept and one thats been a known forever just about. go tell the boys round at GS new york office what you just said and see how you get on. :lol:


----------



## José Herring (Feb 18, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sat Feb 18 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Sat Feb 18 said:
> ...



If "the boys" knew what they're talking about then the world would be a lot better place. The last place I look for financial "wisdom" is a investment manager who's sole calculation seems to be," how can I make money by screwing everybody else" :roll: If you have worked in the "money" profession as you claim you would know that to be the case. The only two thoughts that I've run across hanging with wall street types are "get rich quick by any means" and "trick the system to my benefit". That's the only thought that guys like Mitt Romney seem capable of.

And what you notice around the world isn't a clash between public and private sector. It's a conflict of basic economy laws vs. political philosophy. A lack of understanding on the part of many cultures that these subjects are not compatible, are two different subjects, and that economic laws can't be broken to serve the political flavor of the moment. Many have tried all across the political spectrum (Karl Marx, Keynes, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, ect..) all have failed so totally utterly that I'm left wondering why anybody is still paying attention to the so called economic experts. They obviously either had no idea what they're talking about (Marx), or had an evil wish to destroy the world(Keynes), or were living in a purely idealist fantasy (Friedman, Greenspan).

Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom" :roll: History has shown that pure capitalism has only lead to a total monopoly as the few with the capital crush the many who don't have it. :lol: 

Keynes, there's a gem of a guy. Create full employment by making the products and services of a country so scares that people have to work full time just to afford the basics of survival. And, this one's the killer. Actively invite inflation so that the savings of an individual erodes over time because his money is worth less. And to top it off, him saying that vested interest is a necessary evil. What's worse is that he contradicted himself. Because he knew economic laws, yet advised the government of England not to follow them, all the while admitting that not following these laws would lead to long term catastrophic events.

Then Alan Greenspan and his idea that "the market will regulate itself". Please, any parent knows that if you leave a kid unsupervised for too long he'll get into trouble. An unregulated market is like an unwatched elementary school yard.

And Milton, what the hell. Just because he's the opposite of his teacher Keynes doesn't all of the sudden make your theories correct. Did he notice what happened to China? Use to be the most capitalistic country in the world. Plugging itself into total communism at the end because the few enslaved the many, causing the many to rise up and hit the few with a totalitarian style government that then crushed everybody.

Al these guys in blatant violation of economic laws. Kind of like trying to bend the laws of physics to political pressures. You know, this law gravity? It treats people unfairly because birds can fly, so let's try and change it. :lol:


----------



## snowleopard (Feb 18, 2012)

Excellent post Jose.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 18, 2012)

But that's not what's happening in Europe at all, Jose. That's what right wing fux claim, and it's not true.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 18, 2012)

Plus what you're saying about Keynes is absurd. Sorry.


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 19, 2012)

you guys are good musicians and i enjoy coming here and listening to the music. can any of you write songs? can one of you write a song called Living in Denial? love to hear it. it would be smash hit in several countries around the world im sure of it.

:lol:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2012)

Regarding public and private, we want an appropriate balance. I don't want all roads to be private with gates and tolls. And I don't want the government in charge of all film and music production.

Just yesterday at Best Buy, I heard a guy say, "any tax you pay is too much." That attitude is a bad as communism - in the other direction.

Whether you concentrate too much power in the hands of a few bureaucrats or a few businessmen doesn't matter. It can still be an excessive concentration of power.


----------



## George Caplan (Feb 19, 2012)

thats a philosophical approach/appraisal.

public v private is purely economic. lower taxes are a must in the present climate. again thats purely economic and not philosophical. youve got to get people spending again and the best way to do that is through the incentive of lower taxes. then you can start looking at home based manufacturing et al and the philosophy of giving your own people jobs and worrying about wage levels later. lower taxes doesnt necessarily mean a lower tax take.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 19, 2012)

Which taxes are lower makes all the difference in the world. And that's not going to re-hire all the teachers who have been fired. 

We need bigger government spending/investment and aid to the states. And more to stop the foreclosures.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sun Feb 19 said:


> thats a philosophical approach/appraisal.
> 
> public v private is purely economic. lower taxes are a must in the present climate. again thats purely economic and not philosophical. youve got to get people spending again and the best way to do that is through the incentive of lower taxes. then you can start looking at home based manufacturing et al and the philosophy of giving your own people jobs and worrying about wage levels later. lower taxes doesnt necessarily mean a lower tax take.



Strange-I look at retail numbers all the time, and they look pretty good to me.


----------



## midphase (Feb 19, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sun Feb 19 said:


> youve got to get people spending again and the best way to do that is through the incentive of lower taxes. then you can start looking at home based manufacturing et al and the philosophy of giving your own people jobs and worrying about wage levels later. lower taxes doesnt necessarily mean a lower tax take.



I disagree, lower taxes don't get people to spend anymore than they do with higher taxes and there are plenty of economists who say it too. Higher incomes and more jobs do that, those two are tied strongly to the top 1% in the country. As long as they opt to outsource to other countries, and push back on unions then the wages will remain low and the job growth negligible.


----------

