I Want My Party Back

[quote]grew7 wrote:
I agree. We should all do our country a favor by not watching porn. Porn is what’s really wrong with America today.[/quote]

LOL Of course! It all makes sense now… :slight_smile:

Several states ban sex toys now, and the supreme court wants nothing to do with examining the issue:

I like the site above. Kinky, swinging, leather-clad christians… it doesn’t get much sweeter than that… I HAD to use them as the link reference for Alabama’s ban.

Georgia and Mississippi have similar bans as well, if I am not mistaken. I, for one, am glad that all other problems with our nation have been solved so that we can turn our attention to stuff like this.

Sorry that sex intimidates you bible-thumping, self-repressed, scared-of-your-own-shadow people. Of course, not as sorry as I am about your ability to make laws and regulations which govern entire states with your repression and misunderstanding.

These are red states, BB. Although I agree with Boston’s take on us going overboard with saying the whole GOP is screwed on account of these radicals, we have to be honest and say that they do have an inordinate amount of pull for what should be a fringe part of the party.

[quote]Diomede wrote:
well, i’d agree with that. The problem with small government = people say the government failed them whenever a 9/11/hurricane katrina/andrew or whatever comes through.

[/quote]

Uh, yeah, because all of that HUGE GIGANATIC FUCKING BIG government was ready in a moments notice when a disaster like Katrina ran through. Thank the heavenly stars above for all of that there guv’ment.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Diomede wrote:
well, i’d agree with that. The problem with small government = people say the government failed them whenever a 9/11/hurricane katrina/andrew or whatever comes through.

Uh, yeah, because all of that HUGE GIGANATIC FUCKING BIG government was ready in a moments notice when a disaster like Katrina ran through. Thank the heavenly stars above for all of that there guv’ment.[/quote]

Come on Prof., regardless of the party, this is politics. It’s not about actually being prepared, it’s about the perception of preparedness.

[quote]
grew7 wrote:
I agree. We should all do our country a favor by not watching porn. Porn is what’s really wrong with America today.

lothario1132 wrote:

LOL Of course! It all makes sense now… :slight_smile:

Several states ban sex toys now, and the supreme court wants nothing to do with examining the issue:

I like the site above. Kinky, swinging, leather-clad christians… it doesn’t get much sweeter than that… I HAD to use them as the link reference for Alabama’s ban.

Georgia and Mississippi have similar bans as well, if I am not mistaken. I, for one, am glad that all other problems with our nation have been solved so that we can turn our attention to stuff like this.

Sorry that sex intimidates you bible-thumping, self-repressed, scared-of-your-own-shadow people. Of course, not as sorry as I am about your ability to make laws and regulations which govern entire states with your repression and misunderstanding.

These are red states, BB. Although I agree with Boston’s take on us going overboard with saying the whole GOP is screwed on account of these radicals, we have to be honest and say that they do have an inordinate amount of pull for what should be a fringe part of the party.[/quote]

I don’t know about “inordinate” Loth. Which laws and/or policies have been passed on the national level solely to mollify this group? Of any you can name, how have they affected your life?

Now how about policies for supply siders?

Note, I am specifically not addressing state-level policies, because those are just that – state-level policies. And the policies enacted on that level may in fact represent the desires of the majority in that state.

[quote]lucasa wrote:

Come on Prof., regardless of the party, this is politics. It’s not about actually being prepared, it’s about the perception of preparedness.[/quote]

There is a reason Bush’s approval ratings are the lowest of any other president. If the American people are dumb enough to vote someone else into office next with anywhere near the same mentality, we might as well sign up for our chains and shackles now so we can avoid the lines.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Republicans have always been a big tent – at least in my lifetime, and I’m 31. The Dems enforce party-line discipline on their hot-button issues – when is the last time you saw a nationally prominent pro-life Democrat? Any ever speak at conventions? How about on the Republican side of the aisle? Do the names Giuliani or Schwarzenegger ring any bells?

Brad61 wrote:

Harry Reid
Bob Casey Jr. (trouncing Santorum in the polls)[/quote]

I didn’t ask you to name any Democratic politicians with personal anti-abortion beliefs. I’m well aware that there are some. I’m asking you to name any Democrats with confirmed positions to support anti-abortion laws who are allowed to have prominent places in the national party, and address the national convention.

As I recall, Casey was specifically NOT allowed to address the Democratic National Convention back in either '96 or '00 when he asked to do so (my memory fails me – it was definitely a pro-life governor from PA though, and one of those conventions).

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

Big party at my house if the GOP runs Rudy Giuliani for president… Woo Hoo! He’d lose bigger than any other candidate in history. Sadly he won’t make it out of the primaries without getting shredded. I would love to see it.[/quote]

You’re missing the point, either purposefully or due to not reading closely. I didn’t say Giuliani would win the nomination – right now he’s not even running. I said look at who the parties hold up as prominent national figures, and see how closely they need to toe the party line on hot-button issues.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And that’s just one issue. I’m sure with just a little thinking we could list a bunch more issues in which there is serious intraparty debate on the Republican side of the aisle, while no dissent is tolerated with the Dems.

Brad61 wrote:

A bunch, huh? Go for it, if you want. The GOP is not more tolerant and welcoming than the Democratic party by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote]

Affirmative action – Major GOP politicians are pro and con. How about Democrats?

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I hope the Far Right religious extremists get even more power, not less. I want to see them tell the Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews and Lutherans that their brand of faith is lacking. Just the infighting over what should constitute official school prayer would be SO entertaining. [/quote]

Keep living in that dreamland, in which all the people you dislike show their “true colors” – which, really, are only your own biases and assumptions.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Come on Prof., regardless of the party, this is politics. It’s not about actually being prepared, it’s about the perception of preparedness.

There is a reason Bush’s approval ratings are the lowest of any other president. If the American people are dumb enough to vote someone else into office next with anywhere near the same mentality, we might as well sign up for our chains and shackles now so we can avoid the lines.[/quote]

I agree.

Starts a war, calls for sacrifice, then cuts taxes.

Massive increases in survelliance, a huge loss of civil liberties.

Ultra conservative supreme court.

This country is headed in a bad, bad place. A debt ridden police state where religion rules the roost, and any and all questioning is unpatriotic and reprehensible.

Land of the free, home of the brave…aren’t we proud…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:


Massive increases in survelliance, a huge loss of civil liberties.[/quote]

Um, no. But at least I can see you have an argument, unlike:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Ultra conservative supreme court.[/quote]

How exactly do you figure that a court with maybe 4 members who could arguably be characterized as “conservative” – obviously Scalia and Thomas, but Roberts and Alito are not necessarily of the same stripe – then Kennedy, and then 4 members who are arguably liberal (definitely w/r/t Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer – Souter pretty strongly too, but more of a squish) – is “Ultra conservative”?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This country is headed in a bad, bad place. A debt ridden police state where religion rules the roost, and any and all questioning is unpatriotic and reprehensible.

Land of the free, home of the brave…aren’t we proud…[/quote]

Man, I’m glad I don’t live in New Jersey – things aren’t nearly that bad everywhere else I go in this country…

BTW, re: Tax cuts, they aren’t the problem.

Wall Street Journal Editorial

Beltway Windfall
March 23, 2006; Page A16

The next time some Washington potentate moans about the budget deficit, tell him not to blame the taxpayers. They’re already doing their part to reduce it, as the latest Treasury figures on booming federal tax revenue show.

In the first five months of Fiscal 2006, through February, overall revenue continued to surge, growing at an overall rate of 10.3%, or an $81 billion increase from the year ago period, to $871 billion. That builds on the astonishing 15%, or $274 billion, revenue increase for all of 2005, which various fiscal wisemen assured us would fall off dramatically. Apparently not.

This year’s double-digit increase is roughly triple the rate of inflation, reflecting strong gains in business profits and individual wages and bonuses – both signs of a vibrant underlying economy. Corporate income taxes are up 30% so far this year, while individual income tax payments have climbed by 10.3% through February.

The bad news continues to be federal spending, with overall government outlays up 7.6%, or $76 billion, to $1.09 trillion. Defense spending is up 7.5%, but Medicare is growing at a 10.4% pace, which promises only to increase as the prescription drug benefit kicks in. As ever, the elephant in the budget is entitlement spending on seniors.

Economist Michael Darda points out that overall spending has risen at a 6.6% annual pace since 2001, or more than double the 3.1% average rate of increase between 1993 and 2000. If spending in this decade had merely stayed at the 1990s’s pace, the budget would already be in surplus by $143 billion, according to Mr. Darda’s calculations. Some of this increase has been in defense, which was necessary after the rapid declines in security spending during the Clinton years. But the failure of GOP fiscal governance has been in spending on both guns and butter.

As for taxes, the revenue data are further proof of the success of the Bush tax cuts of 2003. The fastest way to stop this revenue windfall, and blow an even larger hole in the deficit, would be to fail to extend the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends through 2010, thus assuring a huge tax increase after 2008. The fear of such a tax hike is already weighing on investors and stock-market valuations. So what are GOP House-Senate tax conferees waiting for?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, re: Tax cuts, they aren’t the problem.

Wall Street Journal Editorial

Beltway Windfall
March 23, 2006; Page A16

The next time some Washington potentate moans about the budget deficit, tell him not to blame the taxpayers. They’re already doing their part to reduce it, as the latest Treasury figures on booming federal tax revenue show.

In the first five months of Fiscal 2006, through February, overall revenue continued to surge, growing at an overall rate of 10.3%, or an $81 billion increase from the year ago period, to $871 billion. That builds on the astonishing 15%, or $274 billion, revenue increase for all of 2005, which various fiscal wisemen assured us would fall off dramatically. Apparently not.

This year’s double-digit increase is roughly triple the rate of inflation, reflecting strong gains in business profits and individual wages and bonuses – both signs of a vibrant underlying economy. Corporate income taxes are up 30% so far this year, while individual income tax payments have climbed by 10.3% through February.

The bad news continues to be federal spending, with overall government outlays up 7.6%, or $76 billion, to $1.09 trillion. Defense spending is up 7.5%, but Medicare is growing at a 10.4% pace, which promises only to increase as the prescription drug benefit kicks in. As ever, the elephant in the budget is entitlement spending on seniors.

Economist Michael Darda points out that overall spending has risen at a 6.6% annual pace since 2001, or more than double the 3.1% average rate of increase between 1993 and 2000. If spending in this decade had merely stayed at the 1990s’s pace, the budget would already be in surplus by $143 billion, according to Mr. Darda’s calculations. Some of this increase has been in defense, which was necessary after the rapid declines in security spending during the Clinton years. But the failure of GOP fiscal governance has been in spending on both guns and butter.

As for taxes, the revenue data are further proof of the success of the Bush tax cuts of 2003. The fastest way to stop this revenue windfall, and blow an even larger hole in the deficit, would be to fail to extend the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends through 2010, thus assuring a huge tax increase after 2008. The fear of such a tax hike is already weighing on investors and stock-market valuations. So what are GOP House-Senate tax conferees waiting for?[/quote]

Good point. Revenues are up a ton. Doesn’t change the fact that this administration is a financial disaster.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I agree.

Starts a war, calls for sacrifice, then cuts taxes.[/quote]

Still better than crippling it defensively, raising taxes, and still not balancing the budget after the gov’t shuts down.

Massive increases in surveillance aren’t the problem (arguably the solution), loss of civil liberties is. Careful with the baby and bathwater.

[quote]Ultra conservative supreme court.

This country is headed in a bad, bad place. A debt ridden police state where religion rules the roost, and any and all questioning is unpatriotic and reprehensible.[/quote]

Right, and the alternative party rather than offering up solutions and contenders chooses to ridicule the current administration and offer ‘anything but that’ solutions.

Yes.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Good point. Revenues are up a ton. Doesn’t change the fact that this administration is a financial disaster.[/quote]

financial disaster might be a good way to summerize the Bush II years so far…

whether the next president is a rep, dem, indy, or space alien, I hope that financial matters are addressed more cautiously…probably not with the current trend of colossal assnine spending by both major parties…but I have hope…

[quote]DPH wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Good point. Revenues are up a ton. Doesn’t change the fact that this administration is a financial disaster.

financial disaster might be a good way to summerize the Bush II years so far…

whether the next president is a rep, dem, indy, or space alien, I hope that financial matters are addressed more cautiously…probably not with the current trend of colossal assnine spending by both major parties…but I have hope…[/quote]

There is apparently nothing wrong with spending large amounts of money…as long as it isn’t on poor people.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Diomede wrote:
well, i’d agree with that. The problem with small government = people say the government failed them whenever a 9/11/hurricane katrina/andrew or whatever comes through.

Uh, yeah, because all of that HUGE GIGANATIC FUCKING BIG government was ready in a moments notice when a disaster like Katrina ran through. Thank the heavenly stars above for all of that there guv’ment.[/quote]

Good point! A large government is not the answer to our problems, no matter how much we wish it so. As Katrina illustrated, it simply allowed for more screwups.

I’ve always believed that a large government with lots of power simply attracts those who enjoy exercising power over others. They want to then increase their powers even further. That’s the road to ruin.

“I’m not under anyone’s jurisdiction.”
— XXX

Great words to live by.

[quote]
GDollars37 wrote:
Good point. Revenues are up a ton. Doesn’t change the fact that this administration is a financial disaster.

DPH wrote:
financial disaster might be a good way to summerize the Bush II years so far…

whether the next president is a rep, dem, indy, or space alien, I hope that financial matters are addressed more cautiously…probably not with the current trend of colossal assnine spending by both major parties…but I have hope…[/quote]

I agree with this, though I’m not sure for the same reasons. I want less butter… and I want entitlement reform.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I agree with this, though I’m not sure for the same reasons. I want less butter…
[/quote]

what do you have against butter?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I agree with this, though I’m not sure for the same reasons. I want less butter…

DPH wrote:

what do you have against butter?[/quote]

Well, I suppose it is better than margarine, but I prefer coconut oil…

Nah, just using half the old economists’ saw about “guns and butter” on the graph…

It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I agree.

Starts a war, calls for sacrifice, then cuts taxes.

Still better than crippling it defensively, raising taxes, and still not balancing the budget after the gov’t shuts down.
[/quote]

Never has a President cut taxes during a war. It is just one of the most ridiculous ideas that’s come out of the Bush Administration.

Its kind of like New Jersey, where Whitman cut the taxes while the courts were mandating that funds be given here and there (which wasn’t great either). Now NJ is in a massive hole.

One day, we will have to pay for all this shit that is happening, just like NJ is going to pay for the next few years. And it won’t be pretty.

I’ll give you that, to a degree. I am talking more on the general path of society, such as cameras in NYC on streetcorners and all that. I am not comfortable with things like that.

The right is just kickstarting it with the NSA programs, the Patriot Act, and all the other fun shit.

By the same token that conservatives want their party back, I want mine back.

The Democrats have become a bunch of pussified, no backbone whiners.

I don’t know what the hell they are doing, and I don’t have much faith in them to do it. I want to vote Green party, being as they’re the only ones that aren’t coporate run, but the fact that Republicans control things is just too scary for me.

And to Boston- those 3 or 4 dissenting votes in the Supreme Court aren’t going to mean much against the other 5. I don’t trust or like Alito or Roberts. Things, to me, are not looking up.

Land of the free, home of the brave…aren’t we proud…

Yes.[/quote]

I am not proud of what America is becoming. We are headed on a dark path…

Bush has already said we will be in Iraq past 08, and that “future presidents” will have to make decisions on it…

Good morning Vietnam.

Man, Hillary is invoking the Bible in the immigration debate – the Dems must be being taken over by religious zealots…