You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 01:57:02 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?  (Read 4251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bayushi

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2009, 03:47:39 AM »
     Show me that this Party, as an institution, really has anything to offer.  That is, anything beyond threats of direct violence -- not rioting, assassination but "making their point" with encouragement toward assault and shooting -- and demands to erase Washington from the whole political map (so that the right can then take it back after railing about how bad it is, after they led it for the last 8 years).

How about I don't show you anything about the GOP.

I have no interest in the GOP unless/until they return to their traditional values of limited government and financial constraint. Can do without the religious nonsense, however.

I think that the GOP right now is missing the one major point when it comes to the issues at hand.

The point being: The country is broke! We can't afford ANYTHING right now. STOP SPENDING.

The issue on the left's side that is being ignored in a wholesale fashion is that there are no real plans for funding socialized medicine/public option/whatever. None. The only thing they CAN do right now is tax Tax TAX.

As if we didn't have enough tax worries as it were, what with Cap and Spend on the way.

To me, this is the single most important issue in the last twenty years in this nation. I'd go further back, but past that we still had the Soviet Union to worry about.

Frankly, I'm plain sick of my problems with all this being called "manufactured", just because some political action committee or another made political actions(THE HORROR!).

Regarding Rush... well, the best advice I can really give is to just ignore him. I do(don't even listen to the radio). Gingrich, however, is more like a Libertarian than almost anyone in the Federal Government(excluding Ron Paul). He has a number of GOOD ideas.

You say that when the Right starts presenting good ideas, you'll listen. Problem is, they HAVE tried to present alternatives, most of which I've not been able to see or read, as they don't even get to committee. The problem with trusting all of this power to a single individual(Speaker of the House) is that said power gets swung like a club. I won't be disingenuous and claim that only Speaker Pelosi does or did this. But she is who we have to deal with now. She can, and does, singlehandedly exclude non-Liberals/Democrats from a number of things, closed door talks about a bill or other.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2009, 04:47:20 AM »

I think that the GOP right now is missing the one major point when it comes to the issues at hand.

The point being: The country is broke! We can't afford ANYTHING right now. STOP SPENDING.
     I do hear some Republicans fussing about spending actually.  Usually in the form: Look, Democrats want to spend so much money on XYZ....  We don't have the money and anyway we assure you it will be a disaster (or at least a great Unknown we can't stomach).

     There is a general problem.  We have an economy based on jobs, consumption, and credit.  These things are all interrelated in a service economy.  Now that we have so much bad credit (and this is associated with a decline in finance regulation since at least Reagan), if there is no government spending...  Not only would we lack vital services, we would need a whole new economy.  Now, I am for a new economy but I don't see how we get from here to there without social programs and restructuring.  Those things take money, and they are worth it.  Your other choice is to go Amish or something similar; more "service in-kind" systems.  Which might not be so terrible, but I don't think everyone would accept it.  Not least the same mega-corporations that the Republicans have tended to cozy up to, somewhat more than the Democratic party. 

     I rather think most people, and corporate leaders particularly, have been weaned on a culture of inequality and cyclical crises.  We need to get out of that.  But I'm with Hairy:  We have the deficit for the wrong reasons.  We're already talking about the next hundred years of productivity affected by debt interest.  If we have somehow come to this point still breathing (and pretending to be moral with where all that money went), why can't we spend a little more and actually use the money to change that direction?

Quote
The issue on the left's side that is being ignored in a wholesale fashion is that there are no real plans for funding socialized medicine/public option/whatever. None. The only thing they CAN do right now is tax Tax TAX.
     I don't see the association here.  One of the Obama arguments on health care reform is that people will be paying less, not more.  And one of his platforms has regularly been tax breaks for everyone but the very wealthy.  Honestly, I think that platform may be overly optimistic in the longer term.  However, I also think we have no real option except to reform our system in the short-term.  It's a case of spend and you might mess it up, but do nothing and the ship will sink.

Quote
To me, this is the single most important issue in the last twenty years in this nation. I'd go further back, but past that we still had the Soviet Union to worry about.
     The Wolfowitz faction went to the trouble to create its own unit inside the CIA, just to exaggerate whatever military capacities the Soviets may have had.  Much like Cheney made Iraq into a great boogeyman by sponsoring his own alarmist intelligence unit -- which none of the established people agreed with.  But that's another discussion.

Quote
You say that when the Right starts presenting good ideas, you'll listen. Problem is, they HAVE tried to present alternatives, most of which I've not been able to see or read, as they don't even get to committee.
     What about the last 8 years?  I'm quite unhappy with what results they have produced. 


« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 04:49:20 AM by kylie »

Offline consortium11

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2009, 07:10:49 AM »
I can give Fred Phelps credit for being the most unpopular man in America. I can't give him much more than that. Just because someone shouts what they believe in at the top of their lungs, even if it is wrong, does not make them 'heroes'. At best, it makes them objects of pity. At worst, they obstruct real progress in the world while they do so.

Oh, I'm not claiming they should be seen as heroes... but respected for actually saying what they believe rather than weaseling around it. The point applies more to politicians then "activists" (and I use that term loosely in relation to Phelps)... it would seem a politicians job is to attract as many votes as possible and the issue is when pandering for votes takes the place of offering alternative policies... especially about the key issues.

Take the NHS debate over here; for the last few years the extent of that "debate" is who is going to put more money into it and the odd bit of window-dressing. There is no talk of deep reform or changes... because none of the major politicians will touch it with a bargepole as it is instinctively an unpopuar policy. The lack of serious debate means that for better or worse the NHS keeps rolling along... with no chance of even a discussion on serious change. Surely that is a bad thing?

I said the democrats would because the implosion of the Republican party will be just that - a horrific mess. You have a bunch of splintered parties and if the Democrats don't start unfunding huge parts of the budget - like say, the entire DEA - then someone is going to start carrying that mantle. Drug laws may actually be the catalyst, even. The abolition of drug laws is not exactly an unpopular stance, and taking a position against them only angers some of the elderly.

The abolition of some drug laws isn't unpopular... but I really doubt a policy of legalising crack, meth and heroin is really going to be a vote winner. Weed may well get through... but the rest are still massive skeletons in the closet which a true Libertarian has to confront.

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2009, 01:48:45 PM »
I just wanted to say two points.

First, "far left liberal media" has been thrown around in this thread- a concept at which I laugh hysterically at. Seriously? You really fall for that old line?

Look- who owns the outlets? Who edits the stories? That's right, rich old bastards deep in the pockets of business interests. As a rule, the local media stations tend to be pretty centralist because if they go too far one way or the other they alienate too many viewers. On a national level however, the news media tends to be mild-to-intense flavors of right wing because the owners force them to be.


And Second, the problem isn't that the republicans are organizing. The issue is that the republicans are claiming that what they are doing is representing the Vox Populi when they are very clearly not, then getting mad when people figure out that they are lying. That's hypocrisy in a breath taking scale.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2009, 01:55:51 PM »
I just wanted to say two points.

First, "far left liberal media" has been thrown around in this thread- a concept at which I laugh hysterically at. Seriously? You really fall for that old line?

Look- who owns the outlets? Who edits the stories? That's right, rich old bastards deep in the pockets of business interests. As a rule, the local media stations tend to be pretty centralist because if they go too far one way or the other they alienate too many viewers. On a national level however, the news media tends to be mild-to-intense flavors of right wing because the owners force them to be.


And Second, the problem isn't that the republicans are organizing. The issue is that the republicans are claiming that what they are doing is representing the Vox Populi when they are very clearly not, then getting mad when people figure out that they are lying. That's hypocrisy in a breath taking scale.

Funny.. seems to me the media is more 'left' than 'right' of late (Fox aside of course). I mean, folks did ALL sorts of parody's of President Bush with no comment on the media but the Obama posters in LA (the hitler ones) rated full on Media outrage. (that is the most immediate example) that comes to mind.

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2009, 02:01:31 PM »
Funny.. seems to me the media is more 'left' than 'right' of late (Fox aside of course). I mean, folks did ALL sorts of parody's of President Bush with no comment on the media but the Obama posters in LA (the hitler ones) rated full on Media outrage. (that is the most immediate example) that comes to mind.

That's because if we used former president Bush as the meter stick, almost everyone does become a left winger. You've got the be pretty far out there for FOX to defend you pretty much to the end.

And as for the outrage over the Omana=Hitler signs, that was just a sign that a lot of people have some sense of class and taste- despite their political affiliations.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2009, 02:10:58 PM »
That's because if we used former president Bush as the meter stick, almost everyone does become a left winger. You've got the be pretty far out there for FOX to defend you pretty much to the end.

And as for the outrage over the Omana=Hitler signs, that was just a sign that a lot of people have some sense of class and taste- despite their political affiliations.

Just pointing out that the meter stick is a bit different now that President Obama is  in office. I mean the number of things I saw out in town while I was in service against the President when it was George Bush that didn't get ANY notice was kind of surprising, and the stuff that the media calls 'insulting' to the president now are quite different.

Of course I am not defending the bush presidency.I'm still pissed that if I mention say.. things I know about a few systems I worked on I can go to jail for a LONG time and someone in the white house clearly bought a 'get out of jail free' card at the cost of 'Scooter' Libby's career.

And don't get a lot of servicemen started on the 'No-bid' Contract stuff that was utter crap.

I'm just saying the measuring stick is different now that somoene they like is in the white house.

Point. When the CIA did a single drone strike in Yemen against a known target it was 'state sponsored assassination' nowadays it's par the course.

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2009, 02:24:07 PM »
Just pointing out that the meter stick is a bit different now that President Obama is  in office. I mean the number of things I saw out in town while I was in service against the President when it was George Bush that didn't get ANY notice was kind of surprising, and the stuff that the media calls 'insulting' to the president now are quite different.

Of course I am not defending the bush presidency.I'm still pissed that if I mention say.. things I know about a few systems I worked on I can go to jail for a LONG time and someone in the white house clearly bought a 'get out of jail free' card at the cost of 'Scooter' Libby's career.

And don't get a lot of servicemen started on the 'No-bid' Contract stuff that was utter crap.

I'm just saying the measuring stick is different now that somoene they like is in the white house.

Point. When the CIA did a single drone strike in Yemen against a known target it was 'state sponsored assassination' nowadays it's par the course.

I really doubt the drone thing started with Obama- in fact I know I didn't because stories of similiar drones being used in Afghanistan and hitting weddings and schools and such instead of their targets got out a few years back. But for the record if I had to choose a single drone over starting another war- well, I'd wonder why those were the only options but choose the drone.

And yes the meter stick has changed, the metaphorical rug has been pulled from under the feet of a lot of people with the first black president- in both good and bad ways. It's something so different for us that somethings just can't be viewed the same way as before.

Otherwise I agree that if one wanted to list the ways in which the W admin was a massive bucket of fail they'd be here all day, so we can leave it at that.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2009, 03:17:58 PM »
You missed the point about the drone.

The first ANNOUNCED strike was under President Bush. And they (the media) were calling it 'Assassination' yet today we do the same thing and it's 'news as normal'.

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2009, 03:25:15 PM »
What I'm saying is that it reached "News as Normal" stage under Bush, so calling it a shocking change under Obama is either ignorant or dishonest- and thanks to our crappy news media it's hard to tell which of the two it is.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2009, 06:26:34 PM »
Quote from: Callie Del Noire
Funny.. seems to me the media is more 'left' than 'right' of late (Fox aside of course). I mean, folks did ALL sorts of parody's of President Bush with no comment on the media but the Obama posters in LA (the hitler ones) rated full on Media outrage. (that is the most immediate example) that comes to mind.
     As a "basic cable" market option, Fox News (the TV form) seems to be a default channel at many college campuses and other public facilities.  For TV news, the fact that there are fewer big, obviously far-right news outlets does not diminish the fact that many people are catching only Fox in passing.  There was also an argument in the activist inquiry Outfoxed that more traditionally centrist news organizations have actually taken hints from Fox on issues as important as the calling of 2000 election candidates, rather than risk appearing to fall "behind" on a story.

     It depends, though, on what sort of media a person relies on and what kind of info they look for.  For instance, I don't get TV these days.  Online I typically scan the New York Times, occasionally Reuters or Yahoo News (although if I see anything surprising there, I want other sources), sometimes the Guardian or recently, very selective bits of Huffington.  And then I may Google around hoping (though often in vain) for more details.  I used to and still occasionally read some other columns -- some more left like Salon and some more moderate like The Economist.  For whatever lefty trends many of these sources have, I hadn't even heard of the Hitler-color posters before.  So, I don't think you can simply chalk that one up to left-leaning media.  Maybe that claim works better for people who frequent farther-left blogs, or are more often looking for news specifically mentioning Obama.

     I also have started to pick up documentary videos on some issues.  Which leads to the next quote...
Quote
The first ANNOUNCED strike was under President Bush. And they (the media) were calling it 'Assassination' yet today we do the same thing and it's 'news as normal'.
     Yes, "announced"...  But by now (or even a couple years ago), it doesn't take extensive research to learn that such operations (though more occasionally) were going on even earlier.  HBO and/or History Channel aired some boiled-down explorations of how the Clinton administration, for example, thought about when to engage Al Qaeda.  Targeted: Osama was one of the titles.

     I wouldn't argue the point that it's still state-backed assassination.  However, I think you're neglecting the context of when that rhetoric was used in regard to Bush Jr.  This was a president who made a point of injecting "God" into his justifications for foreign policy, who was widely believed to be acting to avenge threats and perceived failings of his father re: Saddam, and who generally thumbed his nose at many erstwhile allies in pursuit of the 2003 Iraq action.  Add election issues, wiretapping, ramrodding through environmental deregulation and upper-income tax breaks...  In that context, yes, every new claim of executive privilege to act unilaterally and forcefully on a little-explained case (how many in the American public have been educated about who is who in Yemen, any more than in Iraq?) was drawing scrutiny.

     You may well have a point that the particular missile strikes were in some or many cases, equally warranted for one administration or the other.  (We'd need some real education about the world, and about Middle Eastern history and oil politics and empire, to make seriously informed judgments.)  On the other hand, it's arguable that Bush Jr. actually took less effective flak over his military actions than Clinton.  In the case of Kosovo, it seemed the most politically salient, if not the main rationale for complaint, was that he "must" be hitting Kosovo simply to distract from talk of Monica.  There couldn't possibly be any other issues at play there, could there?  Oh no, it must be those terrible lefties and their bad promiscuous sexuality...

« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 06:29:55 PM by kylie »

Offline Bayushi

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2009, 01:52:29 AM »

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #37 on: August 19, 2009, 04:47:00 AM »
Now Akiko, what have we told you about picking on Congress people for corruption and hypocrisy? It's like picking on retards for being slow- it's pretty obvious. The only difference here is that now the disrupters are being specifically organized and almost hand-picked by an opposition that's supposed to be above such tactics.

Which if of course, still doesn't help the fact that everyone is supposed to be civil in the first place.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2009, 06:35:34 AM »
Hypocrisy much?
     I watched the video, but it seems to me you could draw numerous things from it and I'm not sure where you're going exactly.  What's your take, precisely?  That many images and words used in different contexts over the course of years do not exactly speak for themselves.

     The first thing I would question is whether the situation at town halls today, where I read of over sometimes over a thousand protestors in one place simply trying to shut the whole thing down by shouting and threatening throughout the speech, is really akin to what you saw Pelosi facing.  Notice, in 2009, she is arguing specifically against a style of "campaign" that is afraid to deal in facts.  You're assuming the two kinds of opposition argue from positions of equal merit.  I'm skeptical.  At some point, we have to resolve a conflict between demands for limitless free speech by a few and calls for social welfare policy by the many.  Anyone could hold a minority filibuster on Main Street, but when the traffic can't move at all, it's a different kind of problem.  I don't see the San Francisco protestors bearing guns.  I don't even see them working as a large group to keep the entire speech from going forward.  This was not the same as what I gather from the news lately. 

     It's a lack of good arguments and reliance on false claims and bad premises plus active disruption that mark the present sort of opposition as obstruction in my mind.  That said, I bet you we would be more likely to have truly mass protests that brought positive change the day after the Right miscalculated enough to actually, fully institute too many of their slogans.  Namely, those slogans include: Privatize Everything Further (starting with health care -- just ignore Medicare), Ban the Gays, Reinforce the Rich, Punish the Blacks, and Bomb Every "Evil" abroad in the world now.  Do all of those things immediately and regardless of the history and capabilities of everyone involved, or you are a "pinkie socialist feminine weakling traitor" -- so the logic goes. 

     I want to believe radicals of that ilk are only being sponsored to show up political points and none of the Republican leaders would be inept enough to actually follow through and act on their associations with them.  But that is problematic now that a "core constituency" has been built around them.  Going forward in the spirit of being a "good, solid Republican" while relying on alliances such as these is a path that should lead to larger masses in the streets with good cause, more than a few bursts of tear gas and "free speech pens" could stop.  Not to mention an increasingly dangerous foreign response.  For better and worse, Bush-Cheney were self-preserving enough to operate incrementally and often secretively with those policies that dragged their initially bare-majority ratings (again, lower than Obama's starting support) down into the abyss. 

     The right counts on more of the lefty speakers to stay "nerdy"/"tolerant" and focused across many individual issues, while it continues to change the subject from blink to blink.  Meanwhile, the right mainly rails vaguely about "weakness" and "spending" with colorful references to its over-hyped masculinity -- whether the actual issue in question is health care, abortion or Iran -- so that its most radical people stay in more emotional lockstep.   Then, it tries to sell those few people as "everday" people or a "moral majority," which is simply implausible.  There is free speech, there are arguments...  And then there's just plain throwing fits and dressing up "Me, me, me" as if it made a majority. 

     We're not working with the protests of 2006, anymore.  Different animals, different responses.


« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 06:43:23 AM by kylie »

Offline LaCroix

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2009, 07:25:23 AM »

I'll be the first to admit that the guys showing up at the protests with armed weapons does not look good for the protesters but at the same time you can't judge the entire movement by the few crazies either. I just find it funny myself, how all of a sudden, these 'protesters' showing up yelling and chanting is suddenly so bad.

Who cares who funded these people? They are showing up and protesting against something that they disagree with and that is their right. Its just funny now that it is Republicans doing the protesting, all of a sudden 'they're crazy and they shouldn't be there' is the mindset. This, from the same people, who very happily did the same thing when the Republicans were in control of the White House.

I wont say that I agree with the way any of the protesting has been handled, by the Democrats when the Republicans were in the White House, or now on the side of the Republicans, but its damn hypocritical to call these people out because they have funding from an organization or not. You want to disagree with them, disagree with the signs they're carrying around, that is all well good. Where I take issue, is the fact that people want to make them bogus or crazy, when both sides have loonies out there on fringes.

It's just damn funny to me, that's all. Suddenly these people are disingenious and violent, when they're standing in the crowds chanting the same way I've seen both sides do over the past few years.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2009, 07:42:53 AM »
Of course it's bad.. 'they' aren't supporting the democrats! If it was 'their kind' of  protestors it would be okay.

But then.. if the republicans were in control of congress and/or the white house the dissenting side would still be looked on as 'bad'. It's the nature of the group in control to dislike dissent.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2009, 08:20:14 AM »
Quote from: Ravenchild
I'll be the first to admit that the guys showing up at the protests with armed weapons does not look good for the protesters but at the same time you can't judge the entire movement by the few crazies either.

     It's about the organization that is trying to make policy in the name of that movement.  And its leadership catering directly to the discriminatory, hyper-masculine and sometimes violent egos of the most radical fringe.  It's not precisely a statement on every Republican voter.  It's more a concern about where those votes are being invested, and how groups like the NRA and Christian Right keep limiting the options of the whole Party once a candidate is elected.  The Republican leaders have relied upon these groups for swing votes since the 1980's and therefore, they must act as if they were the whole Party's reason to be.
 
     But since you ask...  I do happen to think it's a little "odd" (at least) to vote for a political machine that consistently swaggers happily into disasters: 9/11, Katrina, in significant part (though not alone here), the financial crisis.  Not to mention attacking racial, gender, and sexual minorities as a matter of course.
 
Quote
I just find it funny myself, how all of a sudden, these 'protesters' showing up yelling and chanting is suddenly so bad.

Who cares who funded these people? They are showing up and protesting against something that they disagree with and that is their right. Its just funny now that it is Republicans doing the protesting, all of a sudden 'they're crazy and they shouldn't be there' is the mindset. This, from the same people, who very happily did the same thing when the Republicans were in control of the White House. 

     You're sounding offended on behalf of all the protestors.  This thread is about how they're being organized and who that organization favors most.  Sure, you can point out that there are some radical anarchists etc. who support certain Democratic platforms.  But I don't see them being centrally deployed as the Party's primary mode of argument. I also don't see their thinking reflected in the Obama administration's economic and social programs (although I also think those have been too incremental, "calmly" presented, and centrist). 
     
     You do see that when the Republican machine gets in power, it's no funding for alt-sex represented for the arts; a push for Creationism and the Ten Commandments on school walls; refusal to pay for distribution of condoms; a push in Washington to free up the flow of assault weapons to the common citizen (surely that's what "militia" meant).  This is what happens when the organization relies upon those groups shouting about a "loss" of values and then the Party gets into power.  With the Republicans, they have relied so much on the radicals to act disruptive, that it seems they can do little but follow their prescriptions.  If the Democrats claimed that their radical fringe were actually a "majority" and institutionally encouraged them as a central strategy, then you would expect much more controversial policy initiatives by now.     

« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 08:21:20 AM by kylie »

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2009, 12:54:48 PM »
Of course it's bad.. 'they' aren't supporting the democrats! If it was 'their kind' of  protestors it would be okay.

But then.. if the republicans were in control of congress and/or the white house the dissenting side would still be looked on as 'bad'. It's the nature of the group in control to dislike dissent.

Wow, Straw Man much?

Like it's been said, the source of disagreement isn't that they are protesting. That's just fine.

The problem is that the republicans are actively and intentionally recruiting and inflaming groups of people that are known for reacting borderline violently to things they disagree with. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest but when the standard operating procedure for a lot of these people are death threats and strong arm tactics and your side is encouraging them to do these things- even helping them do them more efficiently- then that's just wrong.

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2009, 12:58:16 PM »
I'll be the first to admit that the guys showing up at the protests with armed weapons does not look good for the protesters but at the same time you can't judge the entire movement by the few crazies either. I just find it funny myself, how all of a sudden, these 'protesters' showing up yelling and chanting is suddenly so bad.

Who cares who funded these people? They are showing up and protesting against something that they disagree with and that is their right. Its just funny now that it is Republicans doing the protesting, all of a sudden 'they're crazy and they shouldn't be there' is the mindset. This, from the same people, who very happily did the same thing when the Republicans were in control of the White House.

I wont say that I agree with the way any of the protesting has been handled, by the Democrats when the Republicans were in the White House, or now on the side of the Republicans, but its damn hypocritical to call these people out because they have funding from an organization or not. You want to disagree with them, disagree with the signs they're carrying around, that is all well good. Where I take issue, is the fact that people want to make them bogus or crazy, when both sides have loonies out there on fringes.

It's just damn funny to me, that's all. Suddenly these people are disingenious and violent, when they're standing in the crowds chanting the same way I've seen both sides do over the past few years.

Applies to this guy too, I don't remember violent anarchists being actively sought after and recruited, for example.

Offline Bayushi

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2009, 01:32:09 PM »
The problem is that the republicans are actively and intentionally recruiting and inflaming groups of people that are known for reacting borderline violently to things they disagree with. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest but when the standard operating procedure for a lot of these people are death threats and strong arm tactics and your side is encouraging them to do these things- even helping them do them more efficiently- then that's just wrong.

Kind of like how there hasn't been ANY violence from the protestors, right?

Can't say the same for the leftist thugs... err, Union members, can we?

Seriously, this is how you all(Liberals in general) sound:

OH NO! THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER! SOMEONE STOP THEM! WE MUST STAY DIVIDED!

Aww, what's wrong? Divide and Conquer tactics fail so you're(again, Liberals in general) flailing about calling people hateful names?

Ad hominem ftw, right?

Offline TheVillain

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2009, 01:40:57 PM »
Kind of like how there hasn't been ANY violence from the protestors, right?

Can't say the same for the leftist thugs... err, Union members, can we?

Seriously, this is how you all(Liberals in general) sound:

OH NO! THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER! SOMEONE STOP THEM! WE MUST STAY DIVIDED!

Aww, what's wrong? Divide and Conquer tactics fail so you're(again, Liberals in general) flailing about calling people hateful names?

Ad hominem ftw, right?

At this point I question whether or not you're just trolling, because what your opponents argue and what you say they argue tend to be two completely different things. Blatantly and Consistently

On the plus side, this mean I no longer feel obligated to take you seriously in this, so here's popeye trying to pick up a hooker.


Offline Bayushi

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2009, 01:46:08 PM »
At this point I question whether or not you're just trolling, because what your opponents argue and what you say they argue tend to be two completely different things. Blatantly and Consistently

REALLY?

Cause, you know, the Liberal side of the spectrum hasn't been all about divisive politics all this time?

Horse shit!

But I can't expect a Liberal to see that. I mean, they're THE party for all those darkies, right?

I'm surprised no one's tossed out the race card yet in this thread, like Liberals seem to do everywhere else, regardless of the topic or what is said. If that isn't Divisive Politics, nothing is.

and lol @ Popeye

EDIT: I mispelled something.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 01:52:19 PM by Akiko »

Offline Bayushi

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2009, 02:15:03 PM »
Seriously.

"The people protesting are nutcases!"

Some may be "nutcases", but a large majority of America agrees with them. Maybe not their tactics, sure, but the reason behind the protests are legitimate.

However, by throwing out the race card, equating people to Nazi's and the like, the Left plays divisive politics once more.

At one point, protesting(even if organized) was viewed as being "American". But now that the shoe is on the other foot, protesters are being called "UnAmerican".

Sorry, your divisive party can't have it both ways. Protesting in America is either American or it's not.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2009, 02:35:38 PM »
Alright folks, time to step away from the keyboards for a bit. Any points you want to make can be made without name calling and sarcasm, or not at all.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: GOP Corporate Foundation = "Grassroots"?
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2009, 03:24:39 PM »
Wow, Straw Man much?

Like it's been said, the source of disagreement isn't that they are protesting. That's just fine.

The problem is that the republicans are actively and intentionally recruiting and inflaming groups of people that are known for reacting borderline violently to things they disagree with. Nothing wrong with a peaceful protest but when the standard operating procedure for a lot of these people are death threats and strong arm tactics and your side is encouraging them to do these things- even helping them do them more efficiently- then that's just wrong.

And how is this different from the Democrats from supporting and intenitionally encouraging discontent over Republican actions. Oh wait, that's right. They aren't getting blamed for a small portion of their supporters who take things too far. Clearly different. I'm so sorry..

And I as a RETIRED SAILOR resent the stereotyping present in the comic.
(Sarcasm off)

Look, I don't think EITHER side is a saint. GOD Knows what someone like Speaker Pelousi would do to stay in office if she was in a conservative district versus the one that she is in now.

-I think that Vice President was one of the shadiest characters to hold office since the GRANT presidency.
-I risked my promotion chances by mouthing off to an arch conservative chief by correcting him on the implications of the Patriot Act.
-I did NOT vote for George Bush
-I did not think we should have acted in Iraq.

BUT
-I support Lower Taxes, Pro-Choice and Pro-Death Penalty.
-I believe that the public interest is NOT on one side or the other, and only by COMPROMISE is the public good is served.

I am TIRED of one side labeling the other EVIL, WRONG MINDED, BIASED or STUPID because they are other side of an issue.

I am GLAD that President Obama was elected even if I didn't vote for him because no matter how good or bad he is as a president in my OPINION his greatest contribution is to get more people involved the voting process than anyone in MY LIFE time.

I'm sorry you don't see the need to accept that some people can differ in their opinions but some things the democrats have done in the past make me distrustful of them. Granted there is a LOT of stuff the Republicans have done that make me distrust them too. And saying 'See SEE they're being bad' while acting like you're lily white (lookign to both national parties for this) irks me.