• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bill Maher editorial about the Republican Base (Read: Base)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Originally posted by: newnameman
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Don't be an idiot. The costs of medicare part D are largely fixed, future budget deficits are not. That's why when you sign a contract with the phone company to pay a $50 phone bill every month you can safely plan ahead that it will cost you $600 a year, but when you go out and spend $1000 on a refrigerator you wouldn't plan on spending $365,000 a year on fridges.
You're such a hack. Obama can spend as much as he wants as long as its not a "fixed cost"?
Although I have no problem with Obama's current spending and actually wish he were spending more, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. You falsely compared fixed, recurring costs with individual year budget deficits and I corrected you.
 

newnameman

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,219
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Don't be an idiot. The costs of medicare part D are largely fixed, future budget deficits are not. That's why when you sign a contract with the phone company to pay a $50 phone bill every month you can safely plan ahead that it will cost you $600 a year, but when you go out and spend $1000 on a refrigerator you wouldn't plan on spending $365,000 a year on fridges.
You're such a hack. Obama can spend as much as he wants as long as its not a "fixed cost"?
Although I have no problem with Obama's current spending and actually wish he were spending more, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. You falsely compared fixed, recurring costs with individual year budget deficits and I corrected you.
No, you falsely compared a projection of spending over 75 years with a single year of spending, and I corrected you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Originally posted by: newnameman
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Don't be an idiot. The costs of medicare part D are largely fixed, future budget deficits are not. That's why when you sign a contract with the phone company to pay a $50 phone bill every month you can safely plan ahead that it will cost you $600 a year, but when you go out and spend $1000 on a refrigerator you wouldn't plan on spending $365,000 a year on fridges.
You're such a hack. Obama can spend as much as he wants as long as its not a "fixed cost"?
Although I have no problem with Obama's current spending and actually wish he were spending more, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. You falsely compared fixed, recurring costs with individual year budget deficits and I corrected you.
No, you falsely compared a projection of spending over 75 years with a single year of spending, and I corrected you.
Wrong. I compared two articles that would increase the debt, based on their concrete values as accepted by everyone. Medicare Part D WILL cost us $8 trillion (or some close approximation of it). Obama's budgets in the future are in no way guaranteed to have deficits at this level for years in the future.

This is pretty simple, man.
 

sapiens74

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2004
2,162
0
0
who cares about republicans? Democrats are in power and need to fix things. They promised change and fixes and that's what I expect.


I'll worry about republicans when they hold the power
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: microbial
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
but yet just 4 years ago, and 8 years before that, the Dumocraps were bitching about rigged elections, stumbling words, etc... no one seems to ever go "oh, when people lose, they go into personal attack mode"

Both parties sling so much shit at each other it isnt funny...

but i will be lambasted for that on this completely D biased board.
I think what Maher was getting at, and rightly so-- is the triviality, and limp-wristedness of those attacks.

The sum total of everything the right has thrown at Obama so-far amounts to "we got nothing"

The teleprompter thing was as pussy as you can possibly get.

Next scandal will be that he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin--which proves he's not a true and loyal torturer.
And the left's lambasting of Bush's every mispoken word wasn't pussy?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
When Bill Maher begins with "I still don't know what those "Tea Bag" protests were for" that's as far as anyone needs to read. Maher is a douchebag.


And notice he doesn't call them "Tea Party" protests, he makes a clear reference to the term popular with the far-left douches "teabaggers", clearly not understanding that the protests were not a Republican or conservative only protest.
I still don't know what the fuck they were about either. When I hear "Tea Party" I think uppity rich ass holes whining about taxes with krumpets.
Yeah, and when I hear about "democrat," I think poor black welfare-bound losers whining about reparations.

Sound prejudiced and stupid? It should.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21

And the left's lambasting of Bush's every mispoken word wasn't pussy?
Interesting. What words did you find commented on by the "left" to be insulting to President Bush?

/you've posed it, let's hammer this out....
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
When Bill Maher begins with "I still don't know what those "Tea Bag" protests were for" that's as far as anyone needs to read. Maher is a douchebag.


And notice he doesn't call them "Tea Party" protests, he makes a clear reference to the term popular with the far-left douches "teabaggers", clearly not understanding that the protests were not a Republican or conservative only protest.
I still don't know what the fuck they were about either. When I hear "Tea Party" I think uppity rich ass holes whining about taxes with krumpets.
Tea party, tea bagger, who cares?

The people making the most and living in their McMansions with their 5 car garages, etc. are just going to have to make some cutbacks. They will live.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
When Bill Maher begins with "I still don't know what those "Tea Bag" protests were for" that's as far as anyone needs to read. Maher is a douchebag.


And notice he doesn't call them "Tea Party" protests, he makes a clear reference to the term popular with the far-left douches "teabaggers", clearly not understanding that the protests were not a Republican or conservative only protest.
I still don't know what the fuck they were about either. When I hear "Tea Party" I think uppity rich ass holes whining about taxes with krumpets.
Yeah, and when I hear about "democrat," I think poor black welfare-bound losers whining about reparations.

Sound prejudiced and stupid? It should.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,725
52
91
so when Bill Ayers was in the bomb making biz with the weather underground, was justice served for his intent to kill and murder inocent people? I'll bet he loves to gloat to the obama about his weather underground years.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: cubby1223
When Bill Maher begins with "I still don't know what those "Tea Bag" protests were for" that's as far as anyone needs to read. Maher is a douchebag.


And notice he doesn't call them "Tea Party" protests, he makes a clear reference to the term popular with the far-left douches "teabaggers", clearly not understanding that the protests were not a Republican or conservative only protest.
I still don't know what the fuck they were about either. When I hear "Tea Party" I think uppity rich ass holes whining about taxes with krumpets.
Then you are nothing more than a partisan hack, because the majority of the people out protesting was lower to middle class.
Protesting a 3% increase on the marginal tax rate for people who make more in 10 minutes than they'll make in a lifetime.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I think Bill Maher missed the point. (1) To too great of an extent, he describes what amounts to only 25% of the GOP electorate. (2) The GOP is in crisis mode, largely because, under GWB, they got everything they had been bellyaching for in the past 50 years, and when they applied it to the real world, the experiment flopped and flopped badly. Some of the longstanding GOP automatic assumptions that failed are as follows.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where democracy was supposed to win without any opposition were badly bungled because local insurgencies arose to take advantage of the anarchy and corruption, giving tax cuts to mainly the rich did not stimulate the economy, resulting in a big drop in spending power for the middle class while the rich used their money to chase cheap labor abroad, and on the business front, a massive assault on governmental regulations had a great deal to do with the total economic collapse of the banking system.

And even after it became apparent that the voting public was disgusted with the policies of the GWB administration with the resulting loss of republican control of both wings of the legislative branch after the election of 11/06, the GOP leadership did everything possible to maintain GWB lockstep control during the next two years, resulting in gridlock.

And now, assuming Franken wins the MN seat, the GOP is only one Senate seat away from being totally irrelevant. And now the GOP has become only the party of NO, advocating policies that are proven failures. MY comment is and remains, the GOP leadership is still stuck in lala land, while most of the GOP electorate is not. And until the GOP learns the lessons of the past eight years, they cannot start to rebuild.

Even as a fairly partisan democrat, I understand democratic excesses can be equally dangerous, which is why we need both government regulation of business and a strong GOP to keep the various parties honest.

The GOP may be off to a poor start in 2009, but if they chuck their existing leadership, and rally around someone rational, they can get the job done.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where democracy was supposed to win without any opposition were badly bungled because local insurgencies arose to take advantage of the anarchy and corruption,
Agreed. But let's not forget that this foreign policy has been carried over for decades. And it was Clinton who made it policy for the removal of Saddam, and sanctions before the war that were responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Now let's not spin this as any kind of defense of Bush and Cheney's decision to invade, because it certainly is not. But let's not conveniently forget everything that happened regarding Iraq before Bush took office.

giving tax cuts to mainly the rich did not stimulate the economy, resulting in a big drop in spending power for the middle class while the rich used their money to chase cheap labor abroad,
It certainly didn't, because cutting taxes for anyone without cutting spending appropriately just makes matters worse. But this isn't the big picture. The plan wasn't just to cut taxes for the wealthy and stimulate the economy. Included in that plan were to increase government spending and continue irresponsible policies of flooding the economy with new money and enticing further borrowing.

and on the business front, a massive assault on governmental regulations had a great deal to do with the total economic collapse of the banking system.
Pardon me, but it was the Republican congress and President Clinton who passed and signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

And even after it became apparent that the voting public was disgusted with the policies of the GWB administration with the resulting loss of republican control of both wings of the legislative branch after the election of 11/06, the GOP leadership did everything possible to maintain GWB lockstep control during the next two years, resulting in gridlock.

And now, assuming Franken wins the MN seat, the GOP is only one Senate seat away from being totally irrelevant.
Yup, but it doesn't seem to matter, because all of the important policies, foreign and domestic, haven't changed one bit. It's just the other team playing ball now. We're still bogged down in Iraq, with ever-changing timetable for leaving. There's plans to increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan, a dead-end war, with no logical exit strategy.

And in regards to the economy, Obama and Congress are doing the same things that Clinton and Bush did to "stimulate." Flooding the market with new money? Yup. Artificially low interest rates? Yup. Increase government spending? Yup. Lower taxes? Well, they would if they actually could. So increased deficits? Yup, record breaking. At least Clinton tried to pay off some debt.

And now the GOP has become only the party of NO, advocating policies that are proven failures.
Definitely not. But yes, they are now the party of "no." Every time a Democrat gets into the Oval Office, the Republicans become small-government conservatives. But how can you not see that what they are advocating certainly are not proven failures? I mean, when they had control of things, they didn't follow what they are now advocating. They didn't cut government spending. They didn't protect the dollar. They didn't balance a budget. They did what Obama is doing, just not to scale.

MY comment is and remains, the GOP leadership is still stuck in lala land, while most of the GOP electorate is not. And until the GOP learns the lessons of the past eight years, they cannot start to rebuild.
Agreed.

Even as a fairly partisan democrat, I understand democratic excesses can be equally dangerous, which is why we need both government regulation of business and a strong GOP to keep the various parties honest.

The GOP may be off to a poor start in 2009, but if they chuck their existing leadership, and rally around someone rational, they can get the job done.
The sad thing is, LL, they don't have to. All they have to do is wait for the Democrats to fail. And it is inevitable that they will. Why? Because they're running the same damn policies, which have been proven wrong. And worse, have been proven to make things exponentially worse in the long run.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
Originally posted by: OCguy
The (R) base has some whackos, that is for sure.

But the (D) base is not immune.
I dunno man. Maybe she was referring to him fixing the problem and not him having the government pay for her. Also notice the speed that she speaks. It's fast. Now if we pull up some vids of the red neck neocon evangelic base of the republicans you can hear the stupidity in their voice.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
very good points made so far.

I agree with bamacre's points. very well said.


The past 8 years showed that republican leaders are just as susceptible to corruption as democrats. And when they lose the conservatives ideals we vote them into office to persue, they look no better then the democrat alternative. There were some good things done, just as some good things will surely be done over the next 4 years, but far too many bad things as well.

The leadership needs top to bottom reform and bringing in younger republican leaders is what makes me hopeful for the future and return to sanity within the party.


And to those that made assumptions about the prupose of the tea parties or trying to figure out who organized them, just talk to some of the people that went to them and youll know they were regular Americans concerned about many issues, and not just taxes. The name of the event may throw you, but it wasnt centered on just one concern.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Rather than quibble with all of the bamcre conclusions, some of which are right and other wrong, I choose to look at "The sad thing is, LL, they don't have to. All they have to do is wait for the Democrats to fail."

The point being Bamacre, that strategy did not work for the GOP during the depression, the public was so pissed at Hoover and the GOP, that even if FDR failed to turn things around, the GOP did not see the Presidency for 2 decades and the democratic house majority continued for 64 years.

Like it or not, the GOP dug Obama a deep hole, and the bank bail out massive spending started under GWB.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
0
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
The (R) base has some whackos, that is for sure.

But the (D) base is not immune.
Yea except idiots like that constitute very little of the democratic party. Check out the overtly racist comments in response to that vid and you'll get a taste of the much larger "base" of the republican party.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
The problem with the republican party is that all the leadership and potential candidates think they have to be democrats to win. They think being moderates is the key, but they fail to realize that democrats NEVER vote for republicans, they vote for the real liberal, and conservatives will just stay home.

Lemon Law is right on one point, that the GOP will likely not hold a majority again for a long time. But for the wrong reason: democrats are pretty much in power indefinitely since they managed to move the tax burden to less then 50% of the population. When 60-70% of the population pays little to no taxes, they don't care how high they are and will continually vote for the party that promises them more free stuff. No real conservative candidate, whom promises to take that away, can win.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
0
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
The problem with the republican party is that all the leadership and potential candidates think they have to be democrats to win. They think being moderates is the key, but they fail to realize that democrats NEVER vote for republicans, they vote for the real liberal, and conservatives will just stay home.
Dems don't vote for republicans, but even fewer republicans vote for dems. Both parties are targeting the independents. Don't forget that Bush won by running as a compassionate conservative, with issues like education - typically democratic - at the forefront of his candidacy. The fact is, republicans just can't win as republicans any more. Not necessarily because of the reasons you listed, but because their platform has fallen so far out of the mainstream.

We're seeing the downside of Rove's collection of one-issue voters. They're now a disparate coalition whose views are at odds with the moderates they need to win over. As long as republicans are heavily reliant on groups like hardcore evangelicals, gun nuts, and people that hate blacks & mexicans, they'll remain a permanent minority.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
The problem with the republican party is that all the leadership and potential candidates think they have to be democrats to win. They think being moderates is the key, but they fail to realize that democrats NEVER vote for republicans, they vote for the real liberal, and conservatives will just stay home.

Lemon Law is right on one point, that the GOP will likely not hold a majority again for a long time. But for the wrong reason: democrats are pretty much in power indefinitely since they managed to move the tax burden to less then 50% of the population. When 60-70% of the population pays little to no taxes, they don't care how high they are and will continually vote for the party that promises them more free stuff. No real conservative candidate, whom promises to take that away, can win.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QuatomPion, while I do appreciate you agreeing that I am right, but I cannot agree with your cited reason.

The GWB tax cuts went disproportionately to the very rich, the middle class got some but very little tax relief, the rest was put on the national debt, in a very fiscally irresponsible spend and borrow tax policy.

The only persons who will be impacted by the new Obama tax polcies are exactly the very rich that greatly benefited from GWB polices. And these are not really Obama new tax policies, they are more a return to Bill Clinton tax policies after the GWB policies sunset and are not extended. Get a clue, the middle class will not even notice or care. They are hardly getting a free ride as it is.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: cubby1223
If there is one thing I've learned the past few years, is to *never* listen to any liberal's assessment of the Republican Party. And Maher is about as liberal as they come. He would never vote for a Republican no matter what they do, so why should he have any influence on the direction of the party?
Only 21% of americans self-identify as republicans right now. You need Bill to tell you that most people appear uncomfortable being called republican. Republican, it's the new dirty word.

But do you really wonder why a non-party member might have an interest in healthy 2-party debate...?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY