T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Losing five of the last six popular votes for President doesn't appear to have made much of an impact on the Republicans

Count ol' Bob as one of those L's.

He couldn't even beat Clinton during a horrible first term.

And we should listen to him?

Carson wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Losing five of the last six popular votes for President doesn't appear to have made much of an impact on the Republicans

Count ol' Bob as one of those L's.

He couldn't even beat Clinton during a horrible first term.

And we should listen to him?

Yes, we should. The Tea Party has effectively destroyed Republican Party and any chance they have of ever occupying the White House in the near future. Catering to the right wing Bible thumpers will result in defeat and, if something doesn't change in the next year, will result in the Dems picking up seats in the House.

Hopefully, Republicans will pay attention to this Republican legend.

Why? I'm sure plenty of Democrats can empty his colostomy bag as well.

Funny... Bob Dole was Senate Majority Leader for one year and five months. He was Senate Minority Leader for EIGHT years. Clearly, the Republican message held about as much resonance with the Republic then as it does now. Did you have a point Jsc, or are you inviting yet another pile on?

wow.. a take from schmick that didn't make me want to puke.

and a damn good one at that.

Jsc810 wrote:Losing five of the last six popular votes for President doesn't appear to have made much of an impact on the Republicans...

Damn those pesky states, unfazed by the popular vote at the national level.

27 Republican-controlled Legislatures
17 Democratic-controlled Legislatures
5 Split Legislatures
1 Officially non-partisan (Nebraska)
50 Total

When BobDole say "we might have made it," is he referring to him and Ford in '76..or with Kemp as his veep in '96? Either way he was a total fraud and a whore to the corporate plutocracy. He's right to be disgusted by the fascist dementia swirling through the empty craniums of cretins like Cruz, Rubio, Rand, and Ryan, as well as brave patriots like Cantor.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Cantor.

They served pork at his bar mitsvah

As though you would know anything about Eddie Cantor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJyKIErmYWE

No, I'm referring to the malignant traitor Eric Cantor, who is a full agent of the equally malignant fake race-state experiment. It is he to which BobDole is exactly referring as he warns of the utter default of the GOP. You don't exist. :wink:

Well since they are both jews, I didn't think it would matter. To you at least.

schmick wrote:[The Tea Party is not catering to the bible thumpers, that would be the neo-cons.

I was actually referring to the Republicans catering to the Bible thumpers, but I can see how you thought I was referring to the Tea Party. The problem for the Tea Party is that they do include too many thumpers as candidates.

Jsc810 wrote:

Fuck. I should have taken him in the fucking death pool. He may only be worth a couple of points, but points is points.

Jsc810 wrote:Hopefully, Republicans will pay attention to this Republican legend.

Why? What the fuck does he know about winning a national election? He's a two time loser.

Mace wrote:Yes, we should. The Tea Party has effectively destroyed Republican Party and any chance they have of ever occupying the White House in the near future.

The Tea Party hasn't lost the last two presidential elections, you pinheaded dumbfuck. Squishy moderate fuckbags from the Bob Dole wing of the party are the ones who got their fudge packed in '08 and '12.

He's a two time loserwrong. Republicans win if they draw in the conservative voters. It does not work when you are "Democrat Lite" like McCain and Romney. Conservative voters just stay home. That's why we have Obama X 2.

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:Yes, we should. The Tea Party has effectively destroyed Republican Party and any chance they have of ever occupying the White House in the near future.

The Tea Party hasn't lost the last two presidential elections, you pinheaded dumbfuck. Squishy moderate fuckbags from the Bob Dole wing of the party are the ones who got their fudge packed in '08 and '12.

Thanks to Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan, dumbass.

Nobody votes for vice president, you stupid asshole.

mvscal wrote:Nobody votes for vice president, you stupid asshole.

No, dumbfuck, they don't, but they do take notice when the presidential candidate is catering to the right wing dumbfucks and bible thumpers.

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:Nobody votes for vice president, you stupid asshole.

No, dumbfuck, they don't,

Yeah, I guess you're done here, idiot.

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:Nobody votes for vice president, you stupid asshole.

No, dumbfuck, they don't,

Yeah, I guess you're done here, idiot.

Yeah, that's about the same way your bullshit "studies" are footnoted and validated for their self-affirmed results.

mvscal wrote:The Tea Party hasn't lost the last two presidential elections, you pinheaded dumbfuck.

Maybe not, but I seem to recall a Tea Party candidate getting her ass kicked in the Nevada Senate election by a very vulnerable Harry Milquetoast a few years back. And before you poo-poo that, consider that Nevada is one of only two states to vote for the winner in each of the last six Presidential elections, Ohio being the other.

But by all means, continue thinking that the problem with the Republican Party is that it isn't conservative enough. After all, that's worked out so well for you so far.

While we're at it, how about a trip down memory lane, shall we? Who said the following:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

and

Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course that believes that you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid.

I'll give you a hint: neither Gus Hall nor Angela Davis would be the correct answer for either of those quotes.

Give up? The answers are Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower, respectively.

Lincoln and Ike, two of the best Presidents the Republican Party has ever produced, would not even recognize today's Republican Party. I wonder what would happen to a Republican politician today were he/she to utter either of those quotes. Probably would be lucky to avoid a tarring and feathering from the unwashed Republican masses.

Mace wrote:
Thanks to Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan.

Ohhhh, so that's why you voted for Obluegums in two consecutive elections?

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Lincoln and Ike, two of the best Presidents the Republican Party has ever produced...

Both have undeservedly good reputations. One needlessly caused a civil war, and the other one started us off in Vietnam.

Eisenhower only became a republican because the democRats already had several competing candidates.

If Ike had provided the French with air cover at Dien Bien Phu (Operation Vulture) we may not have ever needed to be involved on the ground in VietNam. Sadly our history is full of bad strategic and tactical decisions. Sucked to be Ambassador to Libya recently didn't it?

The right wing meltdown in this shithole over any and every thread is worth the the log in time...keep up the good fight mexical.

Cuda wrote:

Mace wrote:
Thanks to Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan.

Ohhhh, so that's why you voted for Obluegums in two consecutive elections?

I didn't vote for Obama in two consecutive elections, you ignorant cunt. However, with the Dow over 15,000 for the first time in history, the unemployment rate falling, and an improving housing market, maybe I should have cast my vote that way.

Mace wrote:the unemployment rate falling,

Nope.

an improving housing market

Nope.

Maybe what you should do is pull your fucking head out of your ass one day.

But I thought "numbers don't lie," you ignorant piece of shit.

They don't. You do. Labor force participation is at its lowest in 35 years and it is trending downward.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I'm sorry that you are a colossal idiot who believes in every bit of sunshine blown up your ass.

mvscal wrote:They don't. You do. Labor force participation is at its lowest in 35 years and it is trending downward.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I'm sorry that you are a colossal idiot who believes in every bit of sunshine blown up your ass.

Using your graph that you linked, go back a few more years and you'll see that participation is higher now than in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. No one thinks that the economy is great but you have to be a fucking idiot to think that it's not improving.

Mace wrote:No one thinks that the economy is great but you have to be a fucking idiot to think that it's not improving.

It's "improving" the same way 49.9 degrees below freezing is an improvement over 50 degrees below freezing, you senile, old dong slurper

Mace wrote: Using your graph that you linked, go back a few more years and you'll see that participation is higher now than in the late 60's and throughout the 70's.

Who gives a fuck? It's lower than it was ten years ago and the trend is negative.

No one thinks that the economy is great but you have to be a fucking idiot to think that it's not improving.

The reason that the unemployment number is "improving" is because people are dropping out of the labor force and going on disability and food stamps. So the situation we face today is that far fewer people are available to pay exponentially expanding government expenses. It's not sustainable. Our economy is a slow motion train derailment in progress. It takes no special prescience to foresee the disaster and no genius level intellect to understand that things are not getting better.

88 wrote:The housing market is being propped up by historically artificially low interest rates, foreign investment, and more recently, by wealthy people exchanging devaluing dollars for real property.

FTFY

88 wrote:TiC:

Eisenhower never uttered what you claim he said in your quote. He actually wrote something somewhat similar (your version contains edits) in a letter to his brother:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp

Somewhat similar? Virtually identical, with the exception of a single sentence omitted in my version.

And Lincoln was no fan of big government:

Abraham Lincoln, July 10, 1858 wrote:I have said, very many times…that no man believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government, from beginning to end.… I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. I think that I have said it in your hearing that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man’s rights—that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the rights of no other State, and that the general government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. I have said that at all times.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I would submit that in the U.S., no one, or at least virtually no one, wants more government than he/she deems to be necessary. It's the amount of government we deem to be necessary which is where the difference of opinion lies.

And In Lincoln's case, we know that he thought it an appropriate use of the powers of the Federal Government to quell a rebellion from the South, and later, to free the slaves. That was an unprecedented use of federal power at the time.

And given those facts, as well as his statement I cited previously on the relative merits of labor and capital (a quote whose veracity you don't dispute), I don't think it's a stretch to say that Lincoln, were he alive today, would think it an appropriate use of the powers of the Federal Government to level the playing field between labor and capital, at least to some extent.

In any event, you fail completely to address the principal question I raised, which was how would either quote go over if made by a Republican in today's Republican Party? Not very well, I imagine. It certainly wouldn't work out terribly well for any Republican who wished for the endorsement of his political party for any public office. Hell, for that matter, even if the same quotes were made by a Democrat, I have little doubt that the Republicans, and their allies in the media, would try to use such quotes as proof that the Democrats were somehow socialists.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:his statement I cited previously on the relative merits of labor and capital (a quote whose veracity you don't dispute),

If he doesn't, I will. Lincoln never said anything of the sort...EVER in any context. It simply wasn't a comtemporary concern and that quote doesn't even sound like him.

So you have tried to make some kind of point using two bogus quotes. Good job, idiot.

88 wrote:Terry's quote comes from Lincoln's State of the Union Address given December 3, 1861.

No, it doesn't.

Terry's quote suggests a meaning not intended by Lincoln.

That is certainly plausible.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:his statement I cited previously on the relative merits of labor and capital (a quote whose veracity you don't dispute),

If he doesn't, I will. Lincoln never said anything of the sort...EVER in any context. It simply wasn't a comtemporary concern and that quote doesn't even sound like him.

So you have tried to make some kind of point using two bogus quotes. Good job, idiot.

As usual, 1-malt, you're absolutely dead wrong--and are just sitting there turning red with steam coming from your ears insisting No..no..no

Of course lincoln made the quote, exactly as reported. It's famous--though desperately ignored by tired old fools like you. Hannity would as soon discuss Lincoln's observation on labor vs. capital as he would discuss the Lavon Affair.

Wolfman wrote:If Ike had provided the French with air cover at Dien Bien Phu (Operation Vulture) we may not have ever needed to be involved on the ground in VietNam.

Wolf, you disgusting fart-stain on a bag-lady's underwear, are you in some dim state of murky half-sleep as to forget that the French design on Vietnam was nothing less than reducing the entire nation to a state of colonialist slavery? Right? That France wanted to simply resume its subjugation and plundering of a large, distant land? And that Harry Truman's giving the green light to the French was an act of such utterly vile depravity as to collectively gag a Mogol horde? And that our subsequent monstrous assault on the people and land of Vietnam was every bit as immoral and murderous as anything the German Nazis carried out? Or what?

88 wrote:Democrats are socialists, Terry. So are many Republicans, at least the ones that Jsc810 likes.

If you believe that, then you and I have different definitions of socialism.

They all believe in a large central government that is empowered to use force, as may be necessary, to confiscate property owned by citizens they deem to have too much so that it can be redistributed by the large central government to citizens they deem to have too little.

Yep, we most certainly do.

My definition is more in line with that found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t which provides as follows:

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Now, if you can provide me an example of a successful mainstream Democratic or Republican politician who espouses these ideas, I'm all ears. The closest example I can come up with is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who, although he caucuses with the Democrats, is quite pointedly not a Democrat.

As for taxation, taxation, in and of itself, is not inherently socialist. It's quite clear that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and collect taxes.

If you think Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan had views similar to that, then so be it. I don't.

You'll notice that I never once mentioned Reagan. That wasn't an oversight.

In fact, Reagan is where JSC and I part company on this particular analysis. I don't think the current Michelle Bachmann/Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party ever would have been possible in the first place without Reagan as an ideological forbear.