Republicans

Locked
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Animavore » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:04 am

42 is trying to justify his bad purchase and nothing else.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:24 am

Yeah. It also helps that he's never been wrong about anything in his entire life.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Alan B
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:53 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Alan B » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:49 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:Foreboding assertions of financial links, check. Is there any actual substance to support them? Are you talking about the Mercers, or do you have something else in mind, Alan B?
Not just them across 'the pond', but human beings in general, particularly those of a conservative nature (both political and personal). They will oppose anything that will 'hurt their pocket'. Politicians, in particular, are adept at this and will oppose any legislation, however just and worthy and necessary, if such legislation will individually affect their financial status.

We've seen this in the UK where an amendment to a housing bill was suggested to ensure that housing was safe for occupation. It was defeated by a majority that included over 70 landlords of rented accommodation. They would have to spend money to keep people safe!
In America you have politicians with vested interests in the medical insurance industry (that appear to make money out of people dying) actively opposing any medical coverage of pre-existing conditions because of, not for sound medical reasons, but because such coverage could individually affect the politicians pockets.

Any politician who has shares or who benefits from, er, 'lobbying' in an industry will vote against any legislation that will affect that financial income - regardless of the benefit of the legislation to society as a whole.

There are, of course, politicians who will support legislation that will benefit society regardless of cost to themselves - but they are few and far between and, I suspect, they would not be Conservative or Republican... :dunno:
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power - Eric Hoffer.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer proof nor do I have to determine absence of proof because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:08 am

pErvin wrote:Yeah, I was going to mention MBAs...
Men's Boner Activists?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:48 pm

The editor of the conservative National Review doesn't have good things to say about the inept showing of the Republican party.

"The Looming Republican Disgrace"
The ascension of Donald Trump was supposed to change everything in the GOP. As it happens, perhaps one very important thing hasn’t: The Republicans may well still be The Stupid Party.

That Obamacare repeal has one or maybe two feet in the grave, depending on how you’re counting, is testament to jaw-dropping disarray and bad faith.

On the cusp of a historic failure, the party has begun the finger-pointing, and it’s hard to argue with any of it. The establishment is right that Trump is incapable of true legislative leadership. The Trumpists are right that the establishment is ineffectual. Conservatives are right that moderates don’t really want to repeal Obamacare, whatever they’ve said in the past. And pragmatists are right that a few conservatives are beholden to a self-defeating purity.

It’s not as though the party hasn’t pulled out the procedural stops. The passage of Obamacare looks like a punctilious exercise in textbook legislating compared with the desperate, largely secret, on-again-off-again rush to pass complex health care legislation with as little opportunity for public deliberation or scrutiny as possible.
After eight years in which the Republicans specialized in throwing political tantrums, as a party they seem to have let the skills of actual governing atrophy. I think the Tea Party asshats considered themselves to be elected for the sole purpose of obstruction (and got right to work doing just that), so never developed those skills. The rest of the Republican party was so busy pandering to the Tea Party faction in their efforts to avoid getting primaried that many of them at this point are indistinguishable from the Tea Party, and few have the guts to stick their heads above the parapet.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:55 pm

Alan B wrote:
L'Emmerdeur wrote:Foreboding assertions of financial links, check. Is there any actual substance to support them? Are you talking about the Mercers, or do you have something else in mind, Alan B?
Not just them across 'the pond', but human beings in general, particularly those of a conservative nature (both political and personal). They will oppose anything that will 'hurt their pocket'. Politicians, in particular, are adept at this and will oppose any legislation, however just and worthy and necessary, if such legislation will individually affect their financial status.

We've seen this in the UK where an amendment to a housing bill was suggested to ensure that housing was safe for occupation. It was defeated by a majority that included over 70 landlords of rented accommodation. They would have to spend money to keep people safe!
In America you have politicians with vested interests in the medical insurance industry (that appear to make money out of people dying) actively opposing any medical coverage of pre-existing conditions because of, not for sound medical reasons, but because such coverage could individually affect the politicians pockets.

Any politician who has shares or who benefits from, er, 'lobbying' in an industry will vote against any legislation that will affect that financial income - regardless of the benefit of the legislation to society as a whole.

There are, of course, politicians who will support legislation that will benefit society regardless of cost to themselves - but they are few and far between and, I suspect, they would not be Conservative or Republican... :dunno:
Pretty much everything you're talking about applies to politicians in general; Labour, Conservative, Democratic, Republican.

The article that you responded to was about the Republican controlled House refusing to consider a resolution honoring the men who stood up to the knife-wielding white supremacist. Can you be more specific about the financial links between white supremacists and Republicans?

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:41 pm

The National Review op-ed is pretty scathing, and rightly so, but I wonder their view was quite so regretful when Trump was nominated, selected, elected, and inaugurated? But is this a sign that the GOP has well and truly lost its way, or is the self-reflective opprobrium a sign that's its finding a new direction away from calamity?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Alan B
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:53 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Alan B » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:08 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:The article that you responded to was about the Republican controlled House refusing to consider a resolution honoring the men who stood up to the knife-wielding white supremacist. Can you be more specific about the financial links between white supremacists and Republicans?
No. I do not know of any such links which is why I suggested a search. If there are no such links then why are right-minded (no pun intended) people not honouring these men?
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power - Eric Hoffer.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer proof nor do I have to determine absence of proof because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Tero » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:58 am

Waking up every morning knowing he is making a
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
catastrophic
difference.
http://www.theonion.com/video/5-things- ... nell-56340
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:07 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:I am wholeheartedly in favor of education, while at the same time being completely unconcerned about offering students courses in things I don't like as well.
Students are, of course, free to take whatever courses they like. That doesn't mean that whatever courses they like are conducive to being a well-rounded and well-educated person. The quality of our higher education system is something that is of some concern to me, particularly as we get more and more of a push toward having it paid for out of the general treasury.

It's not so much "things I don't like" -- some courses I liked, others I didn't like, and many of the ones I did not like taking were quite enlightening and quite relevant to a good, well-rounded education. So, it's not so much "like" as the key factor, but "value." I recognize that there is plenty of room to debate what courses are valuable to a person in obtaining a good, solid, quality college education.

If someone wants to adopt the position that "Social Construction of Gender - 108" and "Feminist Bioethics" and "Reading Elvis Presley" and "Woman and Popular Culture" (and the other courses offered in the Gender Studies major at Wellesley College) are as conducive and relevant to a quality, solid, valuable college-level education as, say the course requirements for a college major that involves core courses in the sciences, mathematics, philosophy, literature, arts, etc. To me, the Gender Studies isn't merely not likeable, it's just not valuable or helpful to becoming particularly well-educated, and the people attending and graduating with these majors do seem, to me, to bear that out.
You don't accept that subjects like gender studies can be 'valuable or helpful to becoming well-educated', even to those who are interested by the subject and/or find it relevant to their lives. OK. How do you feel about sociology in general?

:tea:
It has its value, particularly to people who want to become sociologists and sociology professors. But outside of that, it's not something that makes a person well-educated. It's sort of up higher on the education pyramid, so to speak, than primary subjects of study. I value core subjects -- I think it's more important to have good grounding in Literature, Art, Mathematics, Science, Philosophy, Logic, History, Language, Writing, and the like. Once a person gets a good grounding in core subject matter, then one can build on that good education to add specialties and other items.

Like, if you want to major in the Literature of 20th Century Science Fiction, or something like that - it's perfectly fine. Do it. But, first, in my view, you ought to have a solid grounding in the basic education classifications I've noted above. We're graduating people from college who haven't taken college algebra, and don't have a grounding in American, western or World History, or American/English Literature, etc., or western Philosophies. That kind of thing.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:09 pm

Feck wrote:The disorder known as sociopathy or Republicanism might be due to brain tumours ....
...so the rules do allow group attacks now? So confusing... mods, can you explain the rule on group attacks please?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:12 pm

Feck wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote: If someone wants to adopt the position that "Social Construction of Gender - 108" and "Feminist Bioethics" and "Reading Elvis Presley" and "Woman and Popular Culture" (and the other courses offered in the Gender Studies major at Wellesley College) are as conducive and relevant to a quality, solid, valuable college-level education as, say the course requirements for a college major that involves core courses in the sciences, mathematics, philosophy, literature, arts, etc.
Why does it have to be as valuable as other courses? That it might not (subjectively) be as valuable as a STEM course doesn't mean it has no (or not enough) value. This is just another example of the busted logic that you keep rhetorically employing.
MBA is still a degree isn't it ? That's a course in lying, stealing and avoiding taxes ..hardly an academic pursuit.
Indeed, it is a degree, and one that I would treat the same way as sociology and gender studies. Take it if it interests you or is relevant to you, but people should, in my view, get a good, solid grounding in core education subjects before they do. Just getting a business degree is, in my view, a waste of a lot of time and money. The only advantage a business degree has over gender studies is that a business degree has a broader application to getting a job. That's it. But, as far as affording an "education" other than it's practical aspects such as accounting and finance, corporate structures and transactions, etc., it's not something you can't learn with a few dollars in late charges at the public library.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Tero » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:27 pm

Idiots
Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, and Jeff Sessions all had to learn painful lessons on the cost of being on the Trump Train this week. For Flake, Heller and a few other Republicans, setting themselves on fire for a vote on Obamacare repeal was political poison. Their legitimate fear of their constituents was greater—finally—than their fear of Trump. “Winning over Trump voters” is no longer a sane response to the insanity of your political situation. Many Republican elected still aren’t getting this because they think they can make it work. They stare at Trump’s base-approval numbers, torn between fear and temptation.

To remind my Republican friends for the hundredth time, the Trump base isn’t your base. His supporters hate you as much as Trump hates you. Trump devotees don’t care about shrinking the size and scope of government. They don’t care about the Constitution. They’re not Republicans, except as a flag of convenience. If you haven’t noticed the theme from Fox to Rush and across the rest of the Trump-fanatic clickservative media isn’t “My God, this bill was political death for anyone who voted for it.” Instead, it was “Why won’t Republicans follow Donald Trump over the cliff? What good is a majority if it won’t destroy itself in a vote that 70 percent of the population hates?”

So, to my Republican elected friends, there are a lot of reasons that GOP Trumpism won’t work, but the biggest one is this: Donald Trump hates you. You are, at best, props and extras in “The Apprentice: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” No matter how many times you abase yourself before him, no matter how much you grovel, it will never be enough.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/when-will- ... hates-them
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:12 pm

Alan B wrote:No. I do not know of any such links which is why I suggested a search. If there are no such links then why are right-minded (no pun intended) people not honouring these men?
I can only speculate, since none of the stories I've found on this issue include statements from Republican Representatives explaining why they're refusing to consider the resolution. Perhaps it is a financial choice, but it seems more likely to me that it's an example of Republican politicians trying to avoid alienating those among their constituents who are part of President Trump's support base, which includes a very vocal element of white supremacists.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Tero » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:16 pm

Rand Paul says first sensible thing for years
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who publicly criticized Sessions’ for reversing Obama-era guidelines on criminal charges and sentencing in May, said he’s not in favor of DOJ interfering with state policies regarding marijuana.

“I will oppose anybody from the administration or otherwise that wants to interfere with state policy,” he told The Hill this week.

Paul is part of bipartisan group of Senators pushing legislation to allow patients to continue accessing medical marijuana in states where it is legal without fear of federal prosecution.
http://thehill.com/regulation/administr ... -marijuana
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests