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

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we listened to their advice we would no long be Republicans!!!!!

Funny, because one could say that Republicans have failed to listen to their own advice and are no longer Republicans.

The Democrats only hope in rising to power is upon the Republican coattails of failure. The last 8 years have given them a free ride to the top.

Bottom line, it's your own damn fault.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we listened to their advice we would no long be Republicans!!!!!

Funny, because one could say that Republicans have failed to listen to their own advice and are no longer Republicans.

The Democrats only hope in rising to power is upon the Republican coattails of failure. The last 8 years have given them a free ride to the top.

Bottom line, it's your own damn fault.

Republicans have held the Presidency ~20 of the last 30 years. I wouldn't count them out.

 

[First]

And based on the trend of the early 70's, Disco should hold strong through the next two decades.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we listened to their advice we would no long be Republicans!!!!!

Funny, because one could say that Republicans have failed to listen to their own advice and are no longer Republicans.

The Democrats only hope in rising to power is upon the Republican coattails of failure. The last 8 years have given them a free ride to the top.

Bottom line, it's your own damn fault.

Republicans have held the Presidency ~20 of the last 30 years. I wouldn't count them out.

I wasn't.

But I can only assume what you mean is that it doesn't matter, Republicans don't have to improve, they can just wait for the Democrats to fuck up.

And to that, I have to agree. But I don't have to be happy about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

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.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you:

Why then, for the eight years of the Bush administration when deficit spending was at it's peak and we were paying for two wars and the budget surplus was frittered away - where were the protests then? Why were there no mass movements to curb government spending at that time?

You don't think it smacks of hypocrisy and partisan bitterness when these faux grassroots protests are staged less than 100 days after a Democrat is elected?

Deficit spending was not at its peak during those years though.

In terms of GDP most of Bush's deficits were below the 60? year average.

And compared to what Obama is proposing Bush's deficits are practically nothing.

Medicare Part D ALONE added $8 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, ie: future debt. Not a tea party in sight! Obama adds $1 trillion?! Tea parties everywhere!

Remember though guys, this wasn't a Republican party thing. Nosiree!

There were a lot of Republicans who were unhappy with Medicare Part D.

Medicare part D was passed on largely party line votes, with the Republicans ramming it through.

How can you explain what you wrote and I bolded, considering Medicare Part D?

Originally posted by: newnameman
Could you be any more dishonest in that comparison? You're comparing one year of Obama spending to the cost of Medicare Part D over 75 years.

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

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.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you:

Why then, for the eight years of the Bush administration when deficit spending was at it's peak and we were paying for two wars and the budget surplus was frittered away - where were the protests then? Why were there no mass movements to curb government spending at that time?

You don't think it smacks of hypocrisy and partisan bitterness when these faux grassroots protests are staged less than 100 days after a Democrat is elected?

Deficit spending was not at its peak during those years though.

In terms of GDP most of Bush's deficits were below the 60? year average.

And compared to what Obama is proposing Bush's deficits are practically nothing.

Medicare Part D ALONE added $8 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, ie: future debt. Not a tea party in sight! Obama adds $1 trillion?! Tea parties everywhere!

Remember though guys, this wasn't a Republican party thing. Nosiree!

There were a lot of Republicans who were unhappy with Medicare Part D.

Medicare part D was passed on largely party line votes, with the Republicans ramming it through.

How can you explain what you wrote and I bolded, considering Medicare Part D?

Originally posted by: newnameman
Could you be any more dishonest in that comparison? You're comparing one year of Obama spending to the cost of Medicare Part D over 75 years.

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

Well, since Obama's budget proposals have trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, and you want to compare 75 year budget projections, I guess we should include a minimum of $75 trillion added debt under Obama. Isn't this a fun little game. :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

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.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you:

Why then, for the eight years of the Bush administration when deficit spending was at it's peak and we were paying for two wars and the budget surplus was frittered away - where were the protests then? Why were there no mass movements to curb government spending at that time?

You don't think it smacks of hypocrisy and partisan bitterness when these faux grassroots protests are staged less than 100 days after a Democrat is elected?

Deficit spending was not at its peak during those years though.

In terms of GDP most of Bush's deficits were below the 60? year average.

And compared to what Obama is proposing Bush's deficits are practically nothing.

Medicare Part D ALONE added $8 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, ie: future debt. Not a tea party in sight! Obama adds $1 trillion?! Tea parties everywhere!

Remember though guys, this wasn't a Republican party thing. Nosiree!

There were a lot of Republicans who were unhappy with Medicare Part D.

Medicare part D was passed on largely party line votes, with the Republicans ramming it through.

How can you explain what you wrote and I bolded, considering Medicare Part D?

Originally posted by: newnameman
Could you be any more dishonest in that comparison? You're comparing one year of Obama spending to the cost of Medicare Part D over 75 years.

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

Well, since Obama's budget proposals have trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, and you want to compare 75 year budget projections, I guess we should include a minimum of $75 trillion added debt under Obama. Isn't this a fun little game. :roll:

The comparison is false, but you know that.

 

[retrospooty]

I particularly like this part... Partisaned or not, Bill Maher hit this part right on the nose...

Look, I get it, "real America." After an eight-year run of controlling the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, this latest election has you feeling like a rejected husband. You've come home to find your things out on the front lawn -- or at least more things than you usually keep out on the front lawn. You're not ready to let go, but the country you love is moving on. And now you want to call it a whore and key its car.

reps are angry and dejected, and cant handle it. Read any of the many many many threads started here by the lot of them, and their blind arguments. Things are only gettting worse (for them) as they get better for America .
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/vid...neider.right.track.cnn

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

case in point.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

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.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you:

Why then, for the eight years of the Bush administration when deficit spending was at it's peak and we were paying for two wars and the budget surplus was frittered away - where were the protests then? Why were there no mass movements to curb government spending at that time?

You don't think it smacks of hypocrisy and partisan bitterness when these faux grassroots protests are staged less than 100 days after a Democrat is elected?

Deficit spending was not at its peak during those years though.

In terms of GDP most of Bush's deficits were below the 60? year average.

And compared to what Obama is proposing Bush's deficits are practically nothing.

afaik, bush had some of the largest deficits relative to gdp since WW2, breaking Reagan' records several times. This was during godd times, when government shoudl be paying down its debt for future bad times (like now)

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Balt

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?

And the bolded part is exactly why the Republican Party has failed, imo. They label everything other than Fox News and talk radio as "liberal" and thus never hear any opinions other than their own. You can't grab the middle doing that.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but that opinion is wrong. The strategy of the Democrats is to divide America into groups and come up with a plan to benefit each group. You have the black vote, the latino vote, the homosexual vote, the soccer mom vote, the Wal*Mart shopper vote, etc.

Republicans lose when they play that game. Republicans win when they can unify and explain how conservative principles are in the best interests of all Americans.


But you look at the Republicans left in the Federal Government, and how many of them can you say were true conservatives over the last 8 years? That is why they lost.

I would agree with your middle paragraph, but that's become increasingly difficult for them to do.

The Republican party hasn't been truly conservative since Eisenhower. Every time 'true' conservative candidates run outside of an individual congressional district, they lose and lose badly. America doesn't want true conservatism, and it's shown time and time again.

eisenhower was a 'true' conservative huh? whatever bro.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

3.5 trillion dollar budget and doubling of the debt to fix the economic crisis he inherited from mostly Republican led policies.. THATS what we got..

Fixed. It's like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming the doctor for the pain.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That's a bogus accusation on so many levels.

1. You can not blame the recession solely on Republican leadership. There is more than enough blame to go around.

2. You can not claim that Obama's spending is domestic, while Bush's was on external wars. Domestic spending under Bush grew drastically. Also Obama's war spending is going to be nearly the same as Bush's has been in the last few years.

Yes they can, why? because they dont want to blame Clinton...

That must explain all my posts saying that while the policies that led to the crisis were Republican-led and a part of their core ideology, there is much but lesser blame for Democrats who supported the policies, including Clinton who was wrong to sign the bills during his presidency. Or, it's you lying about the left, again. But you dind't do it sarcastically, so I won't ask for a nickel.

I don't know where PJ got his #2 straw man from, but his answer to it is pretty correct.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

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.

Uh, they were a right-wing movement organized by Fox News to increase opposition to Obama.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

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.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you:

Why then, for the eight years of the Bush administration when deficit spending was at it's peak and we were paying for two wars and the budget surplus was frittered away - where were the protests then? Why were there no mass movements to curb government spending at that time?

You don't think it smacks of hypocrisy and partisan bitterness when these faux grassroots protests are staged less than 100 days after a Democrat is elected?

No.

First off, there was no "surplus" despite the repeated claims there was. Accounting tricks allow for a "surplus" but if any real person or company tried to do the same, they'd be screwed

There was a surplus under the flawed government definitions, but more importantly, you disengenguously give zero credit to Clinton for massively reducing the deficit.

Second, deficit spending was increasing to be sure, but for you or other libs to claim there was no protest is dishonest. There were plenty of use protesting the increases in gov't spending. Not in the form of tea parties though.

When he says protests, I interpret that to mean no out in the street protests like the Tea Parties. It's one thing to grumble on a message board, another to hold protest events.

Third, people were promised "change" and they've gotten nothing but even WORSE deficit spending since BHO was elected. The bailouts and supposed "stimulus" triggered people into action. Yes, some might be partisan, but there are plenty of people who voted for BHO but took part in the tea parties and dislike the massive spending he and the D controlled Congress are ramming through.

The lie of the year so far is Republicans trying to pretend that Obama's emergency spending to fix the economic crisis is simply deficit spending like any other. It's not.

Obama said he had really not wanted to have to spend like this, and anyone with common sense understands he has a point, including the harm it does to his domestic agenda.

Ask the people who 'voted for Obama but are opposed to his spending to fix the economic crisis' whether they opposed the deregulation that caused the crisis.

Stop the lie that Obama's crisis-fixing budget is simply 'big deficit spending' for its own sake. You might argue it's the wrong policy but don't lie to do so.

No one likes the deficits - people either see them as bad but necessary or bad and the wrong policy. Either way, they are a response to the economic crisis.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

Well, since Obama's budget proposals have trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, and you want to compare 75 year budget projections, I guess we should include a minimum of $75 trillion added debt under Obama. Isn't this a fun little game. :roll:

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I would agree with your middle paragraph, but that's become increasingly difficult for them to do.

The Republican party hasn't been truly conservative since Eisenhower. Every time 'true' conservative candidates run outside of an individual congressional district, they lose and lose badly. America doesn't want true conservatism, and it's shown time and time again.

eisenhower was a 'true' conservative huh? whatever bro.

Well I guess the definition of what a 'true conservative' is is pretty malleable, but Eisenhower was a balanced budget hawk, he was generally for limited government involvement, etc. I'm sure conservatives get much 'true-r' than Eisenhower, but he seemed pretty much on that track as far as I can see.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

3.5 trillion dollar budget and doubling of the debt to fix the economic crisis he inherited from mostly Republican led policies.. THATS what we got..

Fixed. It's like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming the doctor for the pain.

LOL true...

But I like to say it like this... Bush is the cancer that caused all this damage, Obama is the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is an extremely horrific, and difficult to go through experience, but the alternative is certain death.

Fear no Evil and the other angry reps are angry at the chemotherapy, because its difficult to go through, while they are giving the cancer a free pass.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I would agree with your middle paragraph, but that's become increasingly difficult for them to do.

The Republican party hasn't been truly conservative since Eisenhower. Every time 'true' conservative candidates run outside of an individual congressional district, they lose and lose badly. America doesn't want true conservatism, and it's shown time and time again.

eisenhower was a 'true' conservative huh? whatever bro.

Well I guess the definition of what a 'true conservative' is is pretty malleable, but Eisenhower was a balanced budget hawk, he was generally for limited government involvement, etc. I'm sure conservatives get much 'true-r' than Eisenhower, but he seemed pretty much on that track as far as I can see.

He was a 'conservative' generally. That did not conflict with his having the high tax rate he did - and paying for the government's spending. President Truman actually invited Eisenhower to run with him on a ticket where Eisenhower would be president and Truman would step down to VP - pretty humiiating, I'd think - and Eisenhower declined on the grounds that he was 'too conservative' to run with the Democrats.

Unfortunately, he happily put the Dulles brothers in power, who sided with European colonization and using the newly created CIA for overthrowing foreign democracy.

That's not really 'conservative' IMO, but is an important part of his record.

On the other hand, he was attacked by the far right, from McCarthy to the John Birch Society, as at best a dupe and at worst and active supporter of communism.

He was contemptuous of the people who are typical of the far right today, privately attacking the Republicans who wanted to attack social security as 'nuts'.

He was eventually against the military running out of control, though he punted the issue to his successor in his finally courageous farewell speech.

On that too he was 'conservative' but not by today's Republican Pentagon apologist standards. You wouldn't have seen him do the big pharma Medicare bill either IMO.

Unfortunately, he was conservative in not lifting a finger to lead on civil rights; fortunately, he was conservative to enforce the Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

 

[JSt0rm]

no need to debate Bill summed it up at the end of the article

"The thing that you people out of power have to remember is that the people in power are not secretly plotting against you. They don't need to. They already beat you in public." - bill maher

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

Well, since Obama's budget proposals have trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, and you want to compare 75 year budget projections, I guess we should include a minimum of $75 trillion added debt under Obama. Isn't this a fun little game. :roll:

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"?

 

[BoomerD]

I for one believe that referring to the "Rebublican Base" seems appropriate...they're very caustic...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

Well, since Obama's budget proposals have trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, and you want to compare 75 year budget projections, I guess we should include a minimum of $75 trillion added debt under Obama. Isn't this a fun little game. :roll:

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"?

Newname: Obama's non-recurring costs can be treated as recurring costs to make up huge long term deficits!
Eskimo: There's a difference between recurring costs and non-recurring costs.
Newname: Saying that non-recurring costs can't be counted as recurring costs is the same as saying that unlimited non-recurring costs are great!

Wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

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.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you:

Why then, for the eight years of the Bush administration when deficit spending was at it's peak and we were paying for two wars and the budget surplus was frittered away - where were the protests then? Why were there no mass movements to curb government spending at that time?

You don't think it smacks of hypocrisy and partisan bitterness when these faux grassroots protests are staged less than 100 days after a Democrat is elected?

No.

First off, there was no "surplus" despite the repeated claims there was. Accounting tricks allow for a "surplus" but if any real person or company tried to do the same, they'd be screwed

There was a surplus under the flawed government definitions, but more importantly, you disengenguously give zero credit to Clinton for massively reducing the deficit.

Second, deficit spending was increasing to be sure, but for you or other libs to claim there was no protest is dishonest. There were plenty of use protesting the increases in gov't spending. Not in the form of tea parties though.

When he says protests, I interpret that to mean no out in the street protests like the Tea Parties. It's one thing to grumble on a message board, another to hold protest events.

Third, people were promised "change" and they've gotten nothing but even WORSE deficit spending since BHO was elected. The bailouts and supposed "stimulus" triggered people into action. Yes, some might be partisan, but there are plenty of people who voted for BHO but took part in the tea parties and dislike the massive spending he and the D controlled Congress are ramming through.

The lie of the year so far is Republicans trying to pretend that Obama's emergency spending to fix the economic crisis is simply deficit spending like any other. It's not.

Obama said he had really not wanted to have to spend like this, and anyone with common sense understands he has a point, including the harm it does to his domestic agenda.

Ask the people who 'voted for Obama but are opposed to his spending to fix the economic crisis' whether they opposed the deregulation that caused the crisis.

Stop the lie that Obama's crisis-fixing budget is simply 'big deficit spending' for its own sake. You might argue it's the wrong policy but don't lie to do so.

No one likes the deficits - people either see them as bad but necessary or bad and the wrong policy. Either way, they are a response to the economic crisis.

You're right, his massive and out of control spending is WORSE than simple deficit spending. I apologize for anyone who may have construed my statement as suggesting they were equal.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Who gives a shit? Is it a deficit of $8 trillion or is it not? Are you trying to tell me that presidents are free to saddle future generations with debt so long as it's sufficiently far in the future?

Well, since Obama's budget proposals have trillion dollar annual deficits with no end in sight, and you want to compare 75 year budget projections, I guess we should include a minimum of $75 trillion added debt under Obama. Isn't this a fun little game. :roll:

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"?

Newname: Obama's non-recurring costs can be treated as recurring costs to make up huge long term deficits!
Eskimo: There's a difference between recurring costs and non-recurring costs.
Newname: Saying that non-recurring costs can't be counted as recurring costs is the same as saying that unlimited non-recurring costs are great!

Wrong.

Nice selective editing there. Why not try reading the whole conversation before interjecting with your little translation.