Republicans

Garrison Keiller really sums it up:

"Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeonedâ€â€and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.

"In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. 'Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,' says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. 'I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

"The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous."

 

Here's a column from a Reno, NV newspaper (sorry I don't have the author):


Regular readers may recall that on Tuesday, I mentioned that a trip to Las Vegas had caused me to question a bedrock belief. People have speculated, and I've discovered company in an area I thought I occupied alone:

I don't get Las Vegas.

I don't dislike it, exactly. I don't think gambling is evil. When I walk through a big casino, though "a venue millions consider one of the most exciting on Earth" - I just don't get it.

The whole gossamer construct hangs on a continuing supply of visitors who can look at a hotel that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build - and somehow believe they'll check out of it with more money than they had checking in. The inventory of those seems to be large, which is good for Nevada but not an encouraging sign for democracy.

Friends in gaming say I'm wrong, that players realize they'll come up short. Whatever they lose is just the price of the entertainment, like buying a movie ticket.

I'm tossing that notion out, though, because it doesn't fit my theory, which is this: The quirks of human nature that keep people coming to Las Vegas are the same ones that shape major political campaigns.


Consider:

- Both depend on suspension of disbelief.

Politicians have lied for 2,000 years. When you place faith in one, you ignore not just individual performance but tradition and history. For at least as long, the only sure money in gaming has been in management.

Are those facts likely to change? Mm. Yet we still hope.

- Both require consumer optimism to a degree indistinguishable from stupidity.

A woman in a buffet line, when she learned I live in Nevada, asked about my "system" for keno. When I said keno is system-immune, she got huffy because I wouldn't reveal my secret. She wanted to believe. This is why casino executives drive Mercedes Benzes.

Similarly, at the Republican convention this week, the party kept its loonies under a tarp, spotlighting moderates while quietly pasting up a platform Genghis Khan couldn't swallow.

The goal in both cases is a triumph of hope over experience. Players, like voters, grasp at a thought: "This can't be as it seems, because if it's as it seems, I can't win. I want to win, so it can't be as it seems."

Works often enough, and more's the pity.

 

I agree with most of this,,
thats why independants are teh wave of the future and are keys now..
republicans have wanted to turn back the clocks ,, i like this only in the sense that the youth gains by giving respect to elders and other traditions which are beneficial for all,, only thing is, like freedom, there is the negatives of it - which are spotlighted and celebrated in the republican party.
Democratic party on the other hand,, is just as close minded. It claims to be inclusive and accepting of all cultures and thoughts ,, but you cant be a democrat of old school or a religeous democrat because god shouldn't play a role in government, though it is a part of you. What i mean is that there are a lot democrats that are ant-gay/abortion/handouts ,,, but they cant say anything or they'd be labeld sellouts or republicans..

anyway,, blindly following a party '' george bush cant do anything wrong and every decision is right " is equal to " clinton knows what he's doing all th etime and isnt' doing anything wrong"
Both parties hate independants..
there must be something good with them... to keep them in check..

lone-stino

 

What's up Vostino? I wish I could get up to Chicago and play you again.

[ QUOTE ]
MADrox said:

Democratic party on the other hand,, is just as close minded. It claims to be inclusive and accepting of all cultures and thoughts ,, but you cant be a democrat of old school or a religeous democrat because god shouldn't play a role in government, though it is a part of you. What i mean is that there are a lot democrats that are ant-gay/abortion/handouts ,,, but they cant say anything or they'd be labeld sellouts or republicans..


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you accusing Democrats of being close-minded because they aren't homophobic? Aren't homophobes the close-minded ones? Is it within a politician's power to eradicate gayness in all of its forms?

[ QUOTE ]
anyway,, blindly following a party '' george bush cant do anything wrong and every decision is right " is equal to " clinton knows what he's doing all th etime and isnt' doing anything wrong"

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not so crazy about the Democrats at all times. They are probably 55% corrupt to the Republicans 90%. Sadly, they are the only tools at hand to attack the Republicans who are on the wrong side of issues regarding the economy and economic justice, the environment, women's rights, (and yes I'm including reproductive rights here. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have one. It's not like there's a shortage of people in the world.) the military, health care for everyone, racial justice, gun control, I could go on... I wish that there were a better option than the Democratic Party as it currently exists, but there isn't and the Republicans are a disaster for America and the world.

 

how are you???
good i hope..

anyway,,
i'm not saying dems are not open minded becasue they are not homophobes...
but i do think that the party seems to be lead by people more far left than what many dems are.
I mean, im in chicago , im hardcre dem... but not to the point where i should be able to say that all unions are good and needed - when if you have a show here at a public place, you have to get union worker even if its to change you're own light bulb.
but the majoriy of chicago dems , especially blue collar union workers, are very homophobes, anit womens rights. they go extreme right on social issues. but if the demcratic party is 'inclusive' and open to all opinions,, why dont they invite more people like such to speak at the conventions or be leaders in party?
yet they ridcule the republicans of booing colin powell when he said that affirmitive action is still needed; know they'd boo someone saying that they believe in a man in a women is marriage at their convention.

I say lets be fair and equal..
btw what do you guys think of the new moveon.org add with the soldier? its on drudge report as well..

chump-stino

 

just in case you wanted to know Madrox, Sgt. Ramrod is way out there to the left of just about everyone. There aren't to many conservatives on this board and almost everyone here who claims to be independent is really just extremely liberal and turned off about the political process. It's refreshing to hear someone who's doesn't blindly follow a conservative or liberal agenda. we need more moderates and independents like you on this board.

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

we need more moderates and independents like you on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually... no, we don't. It's a Virtua Fighter forum. And because of morons like you, General turned into political flame fest. I'm not even going to call it 'discussion'. Can't you find another forum to yell about Bush, and just post in VF threads? Or quit completely, it's not like the board's going to miss your in-depth VF posts.

 

Hey, at least he started it in the "general" threads board...and its not worse than half the other crap that goes on here...

 

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

Hey, at least he started it in the "general" threads board...and its not worse than half the other crap that goes on here...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And truthfully, I have enjoyed some of the interesting points brought up on the board. One of the reasons I am voting this year.

 

Please do vote. Jersey is actually kind of up for grabs.

My attitude toward Pope has changed a bit. He still is frighteningly ignorant, but he serves as straw man for everyone here to rhetorically spank, so in that way he has some utility.

Millions of Americans think the way he does, though it's easy to lose sight of that fact if you always hang around like-minded people. We must not let the Ugly Americans run our country for another four years!

 

But Vith, how can you vote if you didn't pass the reading/writing test? Or did they drop those?

 

GLC, it surprises me that, every so often, the slurrred dribble you call words actually comes together to form some coherent message. But hey, they say if you put a hundred monkeys in a room with a hundred type keyboards one eventually writes Shakespeare.

Anyways please do this thread a favor and



k thx bye.


Oh yeah and Sgt Ram. Jersey is actually a pretty solid democratic state, not counted as one of the swing states, but even still, at least I can say I helped put that nut out of office.

 

Actually Jersey is close, maybe because of Governer McWhatever so yes, vote. Early and often!

 

[ QUOTE ]
MADrox said:

but the majoriy of chicago dems , especially blue collar union workers, are very homophobes, anit womens rights. they go extreme right on social issues. but if the demcratic party is 'inclusive' and open to all opinions,, why dont they invite more people like such to speak at the conventions or be leaders in party?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right about a lot of blue collar types being Democrat because of economics (unions) and socially conservative. These guys really disagree with certain aspects of the democratic point of view, but economic concerns (hopefully) take precedence over there social views. I do not think the party should feel compelled to give these types a forum to air their views on homosexuality, etc.

Here's why: The Democrat Party is the inclusive party. We (ideally) work for social justice. It isn't exactly staying true to the goal of inclusiveness simply by including speakers who want to discriminate against certain groups.

For example, a lot of Democrat union guys are racist. This does not mean however that we should give them a platform to voice their racist views in the context of the Democrat party. Would you like to hear a speaker at the Democrat National Convention launch into a diatribe against blacks or Mexicans? I wouldn't.

All that said, the official Democratic Platform does not advocate gay marriage, but opposses a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Besides, always be aware of people who protest too much about gayness. The biggest homophobes always secretly want to get poked.

 

I do apologize,, maybe I tend to take things to extreme examples.
but here is a real one, and I debate this with the latin community all the time:
I'm going to speak for mexicans instead of all latinos (espeically since mexicans make up the majority of latino population here)
1) we were all (90 %) grown up with strong catholic views
2) our culture continues to be strongly catholic (even if they dont practice catholosism)
3) a lot of our social views are very consertive (anit abortion, anti gay marriage, no liberal welfare if there are jobs despite the pay, strong military - with our history and culture of war)

but our fiscal points are liberal
1) helping the poor especially if there are no jobs (by no jobs we usually mean zero jobs), helping the disabled and old, social programs for people who need, affimitive action, etc...

so i'm asking you,, what democrat really voices that mix of opinions? Some view the social points too personally , like me, and place those a bit more above the fiscal ideas because since we are used to immigrating from a poor economy, mexico, to a better one, USA, we will always surving with migration and hard work.
No matter what anyone says ,, a lot of people in this community thinks that with hard work alone and as long as there are jobs to be had (even if you have to work 2) then we can make it because back home ,, most people come from an agricultural background and are used to working their butts off all day. This is concidered normal.

I'm definatley not saying the republicans do it,, but what I am saying ,, is that we need more real people in politics than politicians.. Luis Guitierez, a real leftist, who represents chicago told the democrats best:
"you guys say one thing and do another just to get our latin vote, so you're no diffrent than the repulicans"

so many points,, but let me stop there..
for me there are a few people who represent a sane and balanced opinioin:
McCain, Lieberman, Clinton,, just a couple..

POPE:
well yes im a true conservative somethings...
i have the bible in one hand, a vagina in the other , a male member behind me all while I lick the flag...
Are you one with me???

chi-stino

 

I hope you understand that joe lieberman believes that video games encourage children to commit violent crimes.

 

yes, i definately doo,,
but i didnt say these people had everything i agreed with, but they are usually following their agenda vs a party agenda.

(clinton actually followed more poles )..

 

Ranting Time

Ha ha, I'd forgotten about Lieberman and that Mortal Kombay shit. Remember when he was on the floor of the Senate and he whipped out his shlong and and started beating it on that Liu Kang doll? Er, wait, maybe I dreamt that.

Anyway, Stino's right that the Democrats do not deliver to minorities like they should. I mean they really don't deliver like they should to working class and poorer people in general and those people are disproportionately black and hspanic. It is probably somewhat due to racism and partly due to the fact that as a group, working class minorities do not make large campaign contributions. Isn't this a bullshit way to run a democracy?

That said, I hate to hear about silly social issues playing a big roll in politics. I hate that abortion is still an issue in this country. We are the only modern where abortion is still a political issue as far as I know. Italy and Ireland don''t count because their intertwining of government and the Catholic Church is, uh, backward, and we're not all Catholic here.

Besides abortion, here are some other things we should stop arguing about:

Evolution: It's a fact, bitches. If you want to teach creationism, do it in Sunday schools, not public schools.

10 Commandments: yeah, yeah I know that Charlton Heston brought them down from Mt. Vesuvius after Jesus gave them to him...but anyway, lets keep them in church and out of goverment offices and schools.

Abstinance-Only Sex-Ed: What a fucking disaster! Increases chances of kids having unprotected sex and thus the chances of getting STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Gay Bashing: Gay people are like so gay, dude. Really. So get off their backs about it. What are you going to do, convince gay people to see the error of their ways and "fly straight"? Who fucking cares what person A and person B do together with their respective dongs?

Women: They are not are just domestic servants and baby factories. They also are good for other things, like pleasuring SgtRamrod. Just kidding. Women don't want to stay in the kitchen and be housewives. Get used to it conservative Americans.

The world: It's round bitches. Quit saying its flat. Stop standing in the way of progress.

 

Re: Ranting Time

intersting point,, agree one hundred percent...

but then i think,,
i a group of dont want to progress,, and do want to get in the way of evolution,
can we not try to recruit or 'brainwash' other people into stopping progress?
Is that not just part of our right to stand in the way?
what if we become the majority (as in the 1970's or before) and decide to vote on every issue, cant we just rule like the taliban, since its democracy at work?

on a related side note,,
why do you think most people dont just migrate to another country that is much more to the examples we use in our arguement?
if central and south america sucks, why do those peopel come here? Gays did first with san fran, the amish do it, and varied others form their towns?

so if america sucks (for dems) or going down hill (for conservatives) why dont we go somewhere , country or town where it is more to our likeing??

is it cause we dont want people to vote for what they want, but have someone who knows better decide for them all the time?

 

Re: Ranting Time

The Taliban and progressives are opposites philosophically. The Taliban and American fundamentalist Christians have more in common. Both believe in a very narrow interpretation of religious texts which they believe to be the word of god. Both have primative views about women, homosexuality, and sexuality in general. Both wish to impose their religious views on the rest of their countrymen, regardless of whether or not they consent.

In America, our country was established with the principle of freedom of religion written into the constitution. Separation of Church and state has also been an American ideal. Now, 200 years later, conservatives are still using religious demagoguery to influence the electorate.

It's the CEOs and captains of industry who are the biggest supporters of the Republican Party. Do you think they really give a shit about abortion or gay marriage? Of course not. If Christianity encourages the believer to pursue a spiritually rich life then how can these guys be good Christians? They have devoted their lives to the acquisition of riches and material possessions.

What the Republican party does is manipulate working class social conservatives into voting for a party whose agenda is not in their best interests economically speaking. Hence the patterns of America since Reagan: rising wealth for the rich with declining wages, rising debt, and vanishing benefits (like health care) for the middle and working classes.

It may take an economic collapse like the Great Depression to snap Americans in "the Heartland" out of their trances. I can see it now: protestors at Planned Parenthood screaming about "baby killers" all of the sudden throwing down their signs and their plastcine fetus replicas and realizing that they have bigger fish to fry because they are working at Wal-Mart for six bucks an hour because their job got outsourced to Bangledesh and that they have been abandoned and used by leaders who at the end of the day don't give a shit about them.