Filling the void in the republican party leadership..

[alchemize]

How about another Bush?

The only positives I can see from this would be a) he's the "smart" one b) possibly some of my favorite posters would burst their pyloric valve in an apopletic fit of rage. That being said, I'd still rather not see another "name-based" person in the white house (or the senate).

 

[sierrita]

I'd say 41 is trying to de-taint his own legacy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

Bush said his "tears will be flowing" on Saturday, when the Navy commissions its newest aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush in honor of the former president, who was once the Navy's youngest pilot.

I shudder at the thought of what will be named after G.W. Bush

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

Bush said his "tears will be flowing" on Saturday, when the Navy commissions its newest aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush in honor of the former president, who was once the Navy's youngest pilot.

I shudder at the thought of what will be named after G.W. Bush

I thought they were going to name a water treatment plant after him in SF.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

Bush said his "tears will be flowing" on Saturday, when the Navy commissions its newest aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush in honor of the former president, who was once the Navy's youngest pilot.

I shudder at the thought of what will be named after G.W. Bush

I thought they were going to name a water treatment plant after him in SF.

I believe it was put up for a vote and was actually voted down surrisingly.

 

[BoberFett]

The Republican party is useless. I hope they die and make way for a truly conservative party.

 

[MovingTarget]

They should go for the epic lulz and nominate Trent Lott... 😛

 

[imported_K3N]

The republicans, a party that once had the interest of fiscal conservatives, anti-interventionist, and anti-government libertarians, now only has the interests of social conservatives and christian evangelicals. LOL.

 

[techs]

I never thought I would say I have had enough bush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
How about another Bush?

Bush said his "tears will be flowing" on Saturday, when the Navy commissions its newest aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush in honor of the former president, who was once the Navy's youngest pilot.

I shudder at the thought of what will be named after G.W. Bush

I thought they were going to name a water treatment plant after him in SF.

I believe it was put up for a vote and was actually voted down surrisingly.

Correct. I assume it was considered too high an honor.

 

[Arkaign]

I'd take Teddy Roosevelt, or Eisenhower's rotting bones over any of the living Republicans.

Both parties pretty much suck due to the construct of our political system (PAC $, bribes at every turn, lobbyists, corporate/business overinfluence, cronyism, etc)

I'd have to say that currently the Dems suck a little bit less than the Reps.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: K3N
The republicans, a party that once had the interest of fiscal conservatives, anti-interventionist, and anti-government libertarians, now only has the interests of social conservatives and christian evangelicals. LOL.

No, the Republican Party has pretty much always been about representing the interests of the powerful and wealthy, and looking for ways to get enough voters to vote for them, whether by espousing 'small government' or allying with te religious right (started under Reagan mostly). The rest are just sort of the 'suckers brought along for the ride' given just enoiugh to keep them voting for Republicans.

The thing is, even some fairly high up Republicans actually beleive the marketing propaganda, and this sometimes causes some interesting drama, such as the battle between the Republican leadership who wanted the Meicare drug bill that was a payola of $150B taxpaer dollars to the big drug donors, while the Republicans who actually beleive the matrial resisted, calling it the scam and waste that itt was. It's not as if they can get hundreds of members of Congress to all conspire.

Thisis why the think tank propaganda is so important - because you can't say to too many people, "vote for this policy because it serves the rich".

You need to create a lie that says, "vote for this policy that happens to help the rich because it really helps the middle class" and such. See 'trickle down economics'.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Craig234


You need to create a lie that says, "vote for this policy that happens to help the rich because it really helps the middle class" and such. See 'trickle down economics'.

Not as good as the lie told to get the black vote. Vote for me (again) and 1/2 of you won't be living in extreme poverty (again).

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: K3N
The republicans, a party that once had the interest of fiscal conservatives, anti-interventionist, and anti-government libertarians, now only has the interests of social conservatives and christian evangelicals. LOL.

No, the Republican Party has pretty much always been about representing the interests of the powerful and wealthy

The democratic party has pretty much always been about representing the interests of those that want to gain power and wealth through governmental intervention, and looking for ways to get enough voters to vote for them. Be it by espousing "gun control" or by allying itself with the radical "ists" (feminine, environmental.. etc). Everyone not actually in the government, the ultimate arbiters of power, are suckers brought along for the ride given just enough to keep them voting for Democrats.

The problem is that some fairly influential Democrats actually believe the marketing propaganda, this often causes conflicts. Look at the issue of school vouchers, something that would help the state of the urban youth but rejected by the powers-that-be within the democratic party because it takes the power out of the hands of big-government and puts it in the hands of the people.

This is why hollywood propaganda is so important - It's hard to make the argument "vote for this because it disenfranchises people", you need to create a lie that says "vote for this policy, that happens to disenfranchise a lot of people, but it really helps protect the minority rights of spotted badgers"

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Craig234


You need to create a lie that says, "vote for this policy that happens to help the rich because it really helps the middle class" and such. See 'trickle down economics'.

Not as good as the lie told to get the black vote. Vote for me (again) and 1/2 of you won't be living in extreme poverty (again).

Except that Democrats *have* delivered a lot better policies for addressing the needs of African Americans, despite how much they're blocked by Republicans.

It was Harry Truman who did things like intergrate the military and put the African Americans in as judges the Senate would not approve, using his recess power.

Eisenhower did little for blacks, but the Brown v. Board of Education decision happened during his presidency, led by his appointee.

Which would make him look a little better but for the fact he called the appointment of Earl Warren his greatest regret.

JFK and LBJ of course led the nation to change, getting the Civil Rights Bill passed - at huge political cost to their party, driving out southern racists key to the presidency.

Their economi programs cut the long-term poverty rate in the US by a third - the only time I've seen that happen in the last century.

Democrats have continually pushed for other programs for some justice for African American such as more funding for education and a higher minimum wage.

While the Democratic Party has had the racist south in it from the civil war until the Civil Rights Bill, I'm speaking of the core Democratic Party who was at odds with the 'bo weevil' democrats who are now and have for 40 years been Republicans. Republicans block efforts to help blacks every step of the way - for reasons ranging from the economic benefits of cheap labor, to simply short-term savings on government spending, to the desire to spend the money on 'their people' instead of blacks who vote 90%+ democratic.

(This is the same reason Republians are so up in arms about 'tort reform', because trial lawyers are a major funder of Democrats. So starve em.)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: K3N
The republicans, a party that once had the interest of fiscal conservatives, anti-interventionist, and anti-government libertarians, now only has the interests of social conservatives and christian evangelicals. LOL.

No, the Republican Party has pretty much always been about representing the interests of the powerful and wealthy

The democratic party has pretty much always been about representing the interests of those that want to gain power and wealth through governmental intervention, and looking for ways to get enough voters to vote for them. Be it by espousing "gun control" or by allying itself with the radical "ists" (feminine, environmental.. etc). Everyone not actually in the government, the ultimate arbiters of power, are suckers brought along for the ride given just enough to keep them voting for Democrats.

The problem is that some fairly influential Democrats actually believe the marketing propaganda, this often causes conflicts. Look at the issue of school vouchers, something that would help the state of the urban youth but rejected by the powers-that-be within the democratic party because it takes the power out of the hands of big-government and puts it in the hands of the people.

This is why hollywood propaganda is so important - It's hard to make the argument "vote for this because it disenfranchises people", you need to create a lie that says "vote for this policy, that happens to disenfranchise a lot of people, but it really helps protect the minority rights of spotted badgers"

You really have to try hard to force the same language I used becuase it's so obviously false in reverse. You really make my case for me by showing how weak your side is.

Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

All your talk about 'helping urban youth' is nothing more than the same free market claptrap used to sell any number of bad policies that harm the poor.

 

[Jhhnn]

Filling the void? They've already got it figured out-

Sarah! Sarah!

Supporting her VP candidacy is already being put forth as the litmus test for the Faithful, The "Real Americans"... whatever that means...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

 

[imported_Steele]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

 

[ScottFern]

I was going to say Ron Paul.......

 

[Deptacon]

Starts with a P.... ends in a..... etreus

 

[BoomerD]

I suppose he thinks his OTHER son Neil should be appointed chairman of the FDIC too. :roll:

NO MORE BUSH!

41 was ineffective, but he DID puke on the Japanese Prime Minister...

43 has been perhaps the worst, the most bought & paid for president in US history.

 

[DukeN]

Rush Limbaugh? Seems like the ideal representative for the neocons.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

Or you could not buy as many books and supplies...and get fewer teachers and less/smaller buses.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Steele

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Take school vouchers - they're little more than a body blow to the entire public education system which during an 'enlightenment period' our nation built to lift people out of poverty - a poverty which Republicans would prefer to return many to so they're easily manipulated cheap labor. These vouchers take money out of public education and give it especially to well off people to subsidize private education.

Your public education apparently sucked, because you fail at simple math.

If there 100 children and it costs $1,000 to educate each of them, that's $100,000. If half of those children get vouchers of $1,000 and use it to attend a private school, the public school loses $50,000. Oh no!! The school has half as much money. They also have half as many children to educate. It's a zero sum game.

Learn math, then get back to us junior.

It's not a zero sum game. Imagine a hypothetical school with 20 students. Each one costs $1,000, so the school has an annual budget of $20,000. Let's imagine, then, that the teacher's salary is $5,000, the bus costs $5,000, maintenance of the building costs $5,000, and books and supplies cost $5,000. All $20,000 spent annually.

Now let's imagine that 10 of those students' parents decide their kids should be going to the expensive private school down the block. Now our hypothetical school has a budget of only $10,000, but half as many students, so it should work out, right? Well, the teacher still gets paid $5,000. The bus still costs $5,000. Maintaining the building costs $2,500, and books and supplies cost $2,500. That means that our school is now $5,000 in debt.

Obviously, this is a simplified example, but schools have large fixed costs that don't get 50% cheaper if there are only half as many students. It's far from a zero sum game.

Or you could not buy as many books and supplies...and get fewer teachers and less/smaller buses.

People who rely on government heavily don't see that option. Private citizens and businesses understand cutbacks, but some freaks believe that government should only ever grow.