Bold New World

[mattp]

The pundits are saying that McCain is likely to lose because he has followed the traditional Republican play book. Is it possible that some fundamental ideas in American politics are changing?

 

If the big three Republican mantras are discarded after this election cycle, we will all be better off. Think about it:

 

1) government is inherently bad for you;

2) trickle down economics will benefit the little guy; and

3) intelligence/science/knowledge should not underly public policy.

 

These are the tenets of the Republican party ever since Reagan. If the election goes as predicted, can we celebrate the coming of more common sense in American politics? I sure as hell hope so.

[wayne]

they have become what they fear and fixate on - big spending-big government, bad judgment

[Doug]

Republican - One who can look in the mirror and call the reflection ugly - and believe it.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Doug

[ScottP]

“I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it ‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the environment. I’ll save that name – someday I might find a plant that eats poor people and minorities.”

 

Seriously Matt, I want to believe what you profess. For the sake of what my children will see as government when they become young adults, I want to believe that Reagan conservatism is finally going to go away...

[Fairweather]

Your thread title sounds a lot like Brave New World to me.

[mattp]

That's what I'm talking about, Fairweather! If your cockamanie ideas are cast on the garbage heap, I'm dancing! I don't honestly think we're there yet, but I'm hoping Obama is right: "yes we can."

[Fairweather]

That's what I'm talking about, Fairweather! If your cockamanie ideas are cast on the garbage heap, I'm dancing! I don't honestly think we're there yet, but I'm hoping Obama is right: "yes we can."

 

Sounds like emotion to me. I doubt you can even articulate what that means without DNC talking points from which to recite.

[Phil K]

Whoa! Why didn't Fox tell me the blue states suck so much? Do you guys think I could get a job in Seattle or Portland?

 

They got table dancing in the Northwest?

 

Joe

Edited October 28, 2008 by Joe the Plumber

[billcoe]

they have become what they fear and fixate on - big spending-big government, bad judgment

 

Exactly, however, those things come with a long list of other baggage as well which normal folks often have troubles with. I have hopes that with a reduced military spending list Obama can get our economy back on track and gov't spending under control.....but it's an unfounded hope. I suspect the dems will exchange military spending for domestic social program spending and we will continue to sink as a country from the burden of big government. Whether he gets a 2nd term, or a "new Reagan" appears and takes it away from the dems, will depend on that very thing IMO.

 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[mattp]

I don't know what DNC talking points Fairweather refers to, but I just listed the first three of those Republican slogans that I'd like to see abandoned forever.

 

I agree with some of Billcoe's skepticism that Obama is really going to change everything, but would't it be a step in the right direction, Bill, if he simply traded cuts in military expenditures for increases in social programs? I agree that the deficit is a huge problem, but wouldn't you rather have money spent on healthcare and welfare than the Iraq war?

[hafilax]

From my limited understanding of the world I guess I would stand on the centrist side of things. The Republicans really strayed from their supposed conservative ideals but still claimed to follow them. This worked in electing Bush but failed for McCain. I guess the voters figured it out. This doesn't mean that everything that conservatives stand for is wrong. There is a balance that is required for a healthy society.

 

I hope that the unprecedented mandate given to the Dems and Obama won't result in an unhealthy swing to the other extreme. What will the Dems do with the blank check? The Republicans shooting themselves in the face with Cheney and Bush are going to have to work hard to rebuild the party into what it should be and to have an intelligent and reasonable voice of opposition.

[Bug]

Actually, in the past, when a dem president is elected, the following election swings congress back to the republican side.

This has given us some good governance in the past (realatively speaking).

[sobo]

...but wouldn't you rather have money spent on healthcare and welfare...?

No, I would not. I would rather see it spent on scientific research for cures for the many forms of cancer, an HIV/AIDS cure, stem cell research, functional bio-mechanical prosthetics, development of renewable energy sources other than the usual suspects (wind, solar, geothermal), increased veterans benefits, etc.

 

I do not need to see one additional red cent of my paycheck go to welfare.

[mattp]

That wasn't my question, Sobo.

 

I specifically listed wellfare because I know that many folks get all bent out of shape by anything given that label. I have seen Obama make no proposal to increase any traditional wellfare program but, even if he did, wouldn't you rather see a dollar spent in that fashion (say, an increase in the TANF benefit for needy children) rather than in continuing the war in Iraq?

[hafilax]

So single mothers don't need support or health care?

 

With good education and access to condoms etc. there should be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer AIDS victims. That falls under health care as well. It's a coupled system such that by spending money in one area it is saved somewhere else.

 

Welfare can be the gateway out of unemployment. Which is more useful to society, a productive worker or a homeless person?

 

Public programs are an investment in society. I'm a firm believer that improving the class separation problem as well as reducing poverty will allow for more efficient and little used health care and welfare systems. The current system in the US is exacerbating this problem so a change of tactic is needed.

 

A short term investment that could result in lowering crime could feed back into your pocket through lower home insurance rates for example.

 

The capitalist system provides one feedback mechanism for optimisation but it is incomplete. Some regulation from the Government is necessary for it to work properly. It's the balance between the two that must be restored.

[Stefan]

1) government is inherently bad for you;

 

I have often wondered about this philosophy. If a republican candidate believes government is bad for you, then why is he running for a position in government?

[sobo]

Again, Matt, no I would not. TANF seems to be doing its job in that the statistics show that the poverty rate and the number of recipients are decreasing over the life of the program (slowly, nay, darn near imperceptibly in the case of the poverty rate, but a 70% reduction in the number of claims by recipients). Good job, Bill. Still, since it's working, I see no need to change it, and hence I would rather not see more of my money going to TANF at this time.

 

Regarding the war in Iraq, I think that was an ill-conceived idea and resultant action, and that we never had a dog in that fight in the first place. However, the Taliban marauding all over Afghanistan destroying monasteries and other religious shrines, murdering members of religious or ethnic groups not in keeping with Taliban tenets, etc. was an entirely different matter. If we were going to be the savior of any nation, our energy should have been focused there, and not in Iraq.

 

I believed it in 2003, and I still believe it today, that George Senior told Junior to finish the business that he never concluded way back in 1991. That was the price that Junior agreed to pay to be able to sit in the big chair.

[billcoe]

I believed it in 2003, and I still believe it today, that George Senior told Junior to finish the business that he never concluded way back in 1991. That was the price that Junior agreed to pay to be able to sit in the big chair.

 

replace the phrase "oil companies" for "George Senior" and I might agree with you:-)

[sobo]

I believed it in 2003, and I still believe it today, that George Senior told Junior to finish the business that he never concluded way back in 1991. That was the price that Junior agreed to pay to be able to sit in the big chair.

 

replace the phrase "oil companies" for "George Senior" and I might agree with you:-)

Howz this, Bill?

 

"Oil companies, who owned George Senior and got him elected, cast their unfinished business to George Junior, also owned by Big Oil, who followed his daddy's advice to pick up the charge where his one-termer father left off."

[billcoe]

That works Sobo! No small coinkidink that Secretary of State Condoleza Rice took the Chevron board of directors place vacated by former Reagan Sec of state George Schultz? Furthermore, notably, the Taliban had denied Chevron and a consortium to install a pipeline across a corner of Asscrackistan?

 

Guess what pipeline got put in immediately after the US attack has (semi) secured that country?

 

No blood for oil my ass. Here's some links to get you up to speed on that.

 

Link

 

Link

 

Edited to add a pic as a picture is worth a 1000 words:-)

 

Next, should we discuss Saddam trying to denote oil for Euros and not dollars: GASP?

Edited October 28, 2008 by billcoe

[billcoe]

that looks photoshopped. Condi was on the Chevron BOD though.

 

Here's the ship before the name change.

 

Edited to add a better pic. Don't think I'm going all Al Gore here either. Gore was worse that any of these folks, his largest holding to this day is an oil company which his traitorous father, Al Gore Senior -may he rot in hell- SPIT- got because he sold his ass to a Soviet Spy named Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum.

 

Bold new world my ass. And some of you somabitches want to de arm the only honest people in this fucked up equation, plain US citizens. Lets give the greedy power hungry politician more power and take it away from the people. Sure. That makes sense: NOT!

 

 

 

Maybe it won't matter, but you don't know that it will or won't.

[mattp]

Again, Matt, no I would not.

 

Again, Sobo, you have declined to answer my question. I didn't ask if you supported existing welfare programs or their expansion. That is the question you have answered twice. I asked if you had the choice between a dollar going to the Iraq war or that same dollar going toward healthcare or welfare, where would you rather it went. A or B. Iraq or Social Programs. You made it clear in your first post on this topic that you'd rather send that dollar elsewhere besides welfare. I get that. But are you SO against welfare that you actually support Iraq war spending more than social programs?

[olyclimber]

http://www.divinecaroline.com/ext/article_images2/condoms/durexredhead.html

[billcoe]

 

Bold new world my ass. And some of you somabitches want to de arm the only honest people in this fucked up equation, plain US citizens. Lets give the greedy power hungry politician more power and take it away from the people. Sure. That makes sense: NOT!

 

 

 

Maybe it won't matter, but you don't know that it will or won't.

 

Like Matt here. People like that.

 

sure.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2008 by billcoe

[mattp]

Guess what pipeline got put in immediately after the US attack has (semi) secured that country?

 

I'm with you there, Bill. I pointed this out at the time - that the pipeline prospect may have been at least influenced our war plan if not been a more important goal than catching Bin Laden. The conservatives on this board scoffed at such a notion.

 

I don't understand your last post, though.