Republicans begin to get it, maybe

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
I echo Monkey on the parameters. Both sides certainly have fringe wackos and obnoxious jerks grabbing for microphones. Show us a list of Democrats who actually have demonstrated influence with the Democratic party and who are comparable in extremism to the list of influential Republicans. Thanks.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Almost every Republican bailed out on Akin and tried to get him to quit the race. Mourdoch's idiocy came very late in the campaign and most Republicans disagreed with his statement about rape.

Actually, I would say Mourdock's idiocy came right on time in the campaign. And really, saying "most Republicans disagreed with his statement about rape" isn't going to score any cool points with women.

Gregg said:
As for Donald Trump, I don't know why anybody listens to him.

You might want to ask this guy why he did.

trump_romney.jpg


A question to those who want me to make the challenge, am I limited only to politicans or can I include reporters/commentators/etc? Because most in the original list are not active, running politicans but attention seekers, entertainers, activists, or what? Rush LImbaugh is NOT a Republican elected official, nor is Fox News, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, Ted Nugent, The Koch Brothers, Victoria Jackson, Hank Williams Jr, etc. If Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson are on the list, shouldn't Jeremiah Wright?

Rush Limbaugh had the baton passed to him by no less than Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the Republican Party who sent the rotund right-winger a letter in 1992 than read in part, "Thanks for all you’re doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I’ve retired from active politics, I don’t mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country."

Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican Party. Because Reagan said he was. Who am I to disagree with St. Reagan?

Fox News is the official network of the Republican Party and definitely the most anti-Obama. Ann Coulter has filled Limbaugh's void in writing bad books and tries to be even more provocative in her denunciations of all things liberal and Democratic. Trump and Ted "I Shit My Pants to Stay Out of Vietnam" Nugent were loud, loutish supporters of Romney while the Koch Brothers poured millions into the election to defeat President Obama and even made an overt threat to their workers that they had better vote for Romney---or else.

You could try and make the case Jeremiah Wright is the Democratic flip side to Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson, but I think you'd have a difficult time finding a Democrat that sought Wright's support in 2012.

Bloo said:
So, one person challenged me only to politicans and others said "I dare you". IF I do this (and I'm not saying it won't be a challenge, but I'm also not sure if there would be a point to it to be honest) can I reach across all platforms to those that are registered as Democrats (and in that case Fred PHelps, no matter what his motives, would be considered as he IS a Democrat) or what?

I want to establish the rules of this challenge right off the bat.

Make it easy on yourself, Bloo. You've already made it hard enough to try and find as many Democrats/liberals with the same degree of influence and legitimacy as the Republicans/conservatives I named.

Just for clarification, I didn't "dare" you to do anything. I left dares behind on the schoolyard playground. It would be enough for me if you were to find a equivalent group of extremists on the Left as the partial group I found with no effort at all on the Right.

If reaching across all platforms makes your task simpler, have at it.

Here's a freebie. John Wayne Gacy. Democrat. How's that? :hooray:

Oh wait...Ted Bundy was a Republican. Never mind. :e2bummed:
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,206
Reaction score
3,271
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I would like to ask in this back and forth of trying to find extremists. From the left what positions of the right seem extreme, and from the right what positions on the left seem extreme. Note: a position should be specific (like complete restriction on abortion or a tax rate above 40%), rather than generic (facist or socialist).
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I would like to ask in this back and forth of trying to find extremists. From the left what positions of the right seem extreme, and from the right what positions on the left seem extreme. Note: a position should be specific (like complete restriction on abortion or a tax rate above 40%), rather than generic (facist or socialist).

A few of the Republican Platform 2012's Greatest Hits:


  • Abortion Ban with no exceptions for rape or incest.
  • Further expansion of Second Amendment Right to Self-Defense
  • No Tax Increases Except for War or National Emergency
  • Marriage Restricted To Heterosexuals Only
  • Medicare Converted to Voucher System
The Republican Party has abandoned the mainstream of political thought and the middle ground to appeal to its loudest and most strident voices on its rightward fringe.



One party platform stated that Hispanics and others should not “be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.” It highlighted the need for “dependable and affordable” mass transit in cities, noting that “mass transportation offers the prospect for significant energy conservation.” And it prefaced its plank on abortion by saying that “we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general — and in our own party.”


The other party platform said that “we support English as the nation’s official language.” It chided the Democratic administration for “replacing civil engineering with social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit.” And its abortion plank recognized no dissent, taking the position that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”



No, they are not the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties. They are both Republican platforms: the first from 1980, at the dawn of the Reagan revolution, and the second the 2012 Republican platform that was approved on Tuesday afternoon in Tampa, Fla.



Subtitled “We Believe in America,” the platform keeps its focus on the party’s traditional support for low taxes, national security and social conservatism. And it delves into a number of politically charged issues. It calls state court decisions recognizing same-sex marriage “an assault on the foundations of our society,” opposes gun legislation that would limit “the capacity of clips or magazines,” supports the “public display of the Ten Commandments,” calls on the federal government to drop its lawsuits challenging state laws adopted to combat illegal immigration, and salutes the Republican governors and lawmakers who “saved their states from fiscal disaster by reforming their laws governing public employee unions.”



Several prominent conservatives and conservative groups praised the new platform. FreedomWorks, an advocacy group associated with the Tea Party movement, applauded the Republican Party for adopting much of what it called “the Tea Party’s ‘Freedom Platform.’ ” Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative icon, wrote in The Washington Times that this year’s Republican platform “may be the best one ever adopted.” And the platform’s gun-rights section — which included the party’s support for “the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be” — drew strong praise from the National Rifle Association.
I would add that mandatory vaginal probes for women Virginia governor Bob McDonnell proposed is extreme. The "show me your papers" laws supported by Arizona governor Jan Brewer is extreme. The anti-abortion legislation passed and signed into law in Mississippi to close the state's last clinic that provides abortions is extreme. Mitt Romeny's "self-deportion" scheme and Paul Ryan's budget were extreme.


Good start, Mr. Garfinkle?
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,206
Reaction score
3,271
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
A few of the Republican Platform 2012's Greatest Hits:


  • Abortion Ban with no exceptions for rape or incest.
  • Further expansion of Second Amendment Right to Self-Defense
  • No Tax Increases Except for War or National Emergency
  • Marriage Restricted To Heterosexuals Only
  • Medicare Converted to Voucher System
The Republican Party has abandoned the mainstream of political thought and the middle ground to appeal to its loudest and most strident voices on its rightward fringe.



I would add that mandatory vaginal probes for women Virginia governor Bob McDonnell proposed is extreme. The "show me your papers" laws supported by Arizona governor Jan Brewer is extreme. The anti-abortion legislation passed and signed into law in Mississippi to close the state's last clinic that provides abortions is extreme. Mitt Romeny's "self-deportion" scheme and Paul Ryan's budget were extreme.


Good start, Mr. Garfinkle?

Good from my perspective. But then I agree with you. I figured it was better to frame the question from both sides rather than frame and offer an answer for one side.

Besides, I knew someone would come up with a list like that one.

And I am genuinely curious what views on the left are seen as extreme on the right.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
...sure is taking a while for that other shoe to drop...:flag:
 

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
19,991
Reaction score
23,517
Location
Aotearoa
Ted Nugent isn't a taken-seriously-by-the-Republican-Party spokesman, is he? He's a fringe wackaloon whose views they would never endorse, right? (Please tell me I'm right.)

Let’s also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,698
Reaction score
1,539
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Ted Nugent isn't a taken-seriously-by-the-Republican-Party spokesman, is he? He's a fringe wackaloon whose views they would never endorse, right? (Please tell me I'm right.)

Let’s also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them.
One of the oddest things in this rant is that we don't really have "welfare" anymore, but you hear this antiquated term frequently come out of right wing mouths. But perhaps he means those who receive Medicare or Social Security. You know, the Tea Party base.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I was thinking this deserved it's own thread, but then I'd be posting threads every day about the GOP.

The senate today rejected ratification of a UN treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities.

"The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens."


At 89, Bob Dole, who has been pushing this issue for years, pulled himself out of his hospital bed and appeared on the senate floor in a wheelchair, begging for support.

In vain. The GOP response:
"I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. . . .

. . .The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/...y-rejected-by-senate-84570.html#ixzz2E8jqSEE3

Treaties of course require a 2/3 majority for ratification.

All 38 votes against were cast by Republicans.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
I was thinking this deserved it's own thread, but then I'd be posting threads every day about the GOP.

The senate today rejected ratification of a UN treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities.

"The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens."

Yes, it's just a horrible intrusion to agree to a treaty modeled on a law we've already had on the books for a couple of decades. The Republican mindset on this is boggling - they won't even agree to a treaty based on our own laws.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Well, here's the explanation:
But digging a bit deeper, the treaty has much darker and more troubling implications.

The most offensive provision is found in Section 7 of the treaty dealing specifically with children with disabilities. That section reads:

“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Oh, the horror.

Here's the thing -- this seemingly innocuous and benign statement is in reality a Trojan horse.
The best interest of the child” standard may sound like it protects children, but what it does is put the government, acting under U.N. authority, in the position to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/this-treaty-crushes-u-s-sovereignty/

This is from Rick Santorum, who is now writing a regular column for WordNetDaily, the right wing conspiracy website and home of the birthers. Apparently this treaty could have enabled the United Nations to sweep into small towns in Kansas and Utah and force parents to raise their children according to UN mandates.

What is truly frighting is that this man was a presidential candidate -- with much support. He's not some fringe nutter. He was a US Senator. He won quite a few primaries and ended up second to Mitt Romney out of all contenders.

Crazy? Well, apparently 38 GOP Senators agreed with this reasoning.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I now Godwin this thread. This kind of creeping crap is how Adolf Hitler, lacking a majority, managed to maneuver himself into being appointed Chancellor of Germany.

38 GOP Senators is 80% of current GOP senators.

Names?

caw
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Ted Nugent isn't a taken-seriously-by-the-Republican-Party spokesman, is he? He's a fringe wackaloon whose views they would never endorse, right? (Please tell me I'm right.)

Sorry, but you're only half-right.

Ted Nugent isn't taken entirely seriously by the Republicans, but his views aren't out of the mainstream of Republican thought.

The Republican Party has no leaders, only wannabees. Even if you know how to pronounce "Reince Preibus", nobody gives a shit what he says and most Americans don't even know what a Reince Preibus is. Mitt Romney? Nobody wants to hear from a loser. John McCain? Yeah, yeah, he's got a great resume, but he stuck us with Sarah Palin and he's a loser too. George W. Bush? Man...we don't mention that name 'round these parts...

Nugent is about as legit a spokesperson as any for the GOP. :Ssh:
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
Sean Hannity seems to love Ted "Friend of the Show" Nugent and has given him plenty of airtime on his show over the past few years. He's pretty much a fixture on Fox.

The Nuge may not be a legitimately influential voice of the Right, but they sure do whatever they can at Fox to provide him with enough airtime to give the illusion of legitimacy.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Nothing Ted Nugent says, maybe except for the swear words, differs in detail from the stuff that Allen West says, or Rush Limbaugh says, or Michele Bachmann says, or Senators Jim DeMint and Jim Imhofe say. Or what failed aspirant Senators Mourdock and Akin say.

In other words, Ted Nugent's ideas represent a significant portion of today's mainstream Republican thought. If he cut his hair and beard and wore spiffier clothes, he'd be a serious threat for major political office in Texas.

Maybe even without the spiffier clothes.

caw
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
38 GOP Senators is 80% of current GOP senators.

Names?

caw

Well, here's the list of names of the ones voting for it. Three of which will be gone from the Senate in a couple of weeks.

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dick Lugar (Ind.), John McCain (Ariz.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats in favor of the treaty.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...rejects-un-treaty-for-disabled-rights-in-vote
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
I now Godwin this thread. This kind of creeping crap is how Adolf Hitler, lacking a majority, managed to maneuver himself into being appointed Chancellor of Germany.

38 GOP Senators is 80% of current GOP senators.

Names?

caw

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/219


It really is a ridiculous, ridiculous position to take for the GOP. If I were running against any of these folks, I would make a big deal about how this vote means that the dissenters do not agree with our own long-standing federal law. Wanting to take away rights for the disabled? That's how it could easily be seen, imho.

Of course, I think the vote is really about the common Kooky Right's meme that the UN is trying to be a totalitarian world government, but that doesn't make it any better. Jaysus, the effectiveness of bizarre propaganda on certain chunks of civilization. It makes me ill.

I'm not big on the UN, given how it is actually run, btw. But this is utter ridiculousness.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,206
Reaction score
3,271
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Here's Rick Santorum's justification for the vote.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-would-ve-had-bureaucrats-unseat-parents.html

His justification is this:

The reason I have so strongly opposed CRPD is also simple. Karen and I have experienced first-hand as we care for our little blessing, Bella, that parents and caregivers care most deeply and are best equipped to care for the disabled. Not international bureaucrats.

What in the heck does this have to do with setting standards for how people should be treated. This treaty is about how governments and businesses should make services available to all people. What does this parenalistic claptrap have to do with the reality of this treaty?
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Nope. Still Not Gettin' It....

Bet you can't. Give it a shot.

Sucker bet. You win. Next.

The "gifts" explanation/excuse for Romney's loss is still being pimped by some of Mitt's stupider surrogates.

Last week it was a senior campaign adviser (some advice!) and now it's that greasy little shit, John Sununu.

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R), the irascible TV face of Mitt Romney’s campaign, told a Granite State audience Tuesday that President Obama won reelection thanks to a base that’s “dependent, to a great extent economically, on government policy and government programs.”


That puts Sununu squarely in the “gifts” caucus, the group of Republicans who — like Romney himself — believe Obama’s coalition is formed by people who want handouts rather than the self-sufficient, individualistic base that they envision as the GOP base. In the wake of the Republican losses across the country last month, the party has split over the “gifts” idea, with some former Romney surrogates and officials dismissing the notion and others, like Sununu, embracing it.



Sununu made his remarks at a post-election forum with two other former Republican governors of New Hampshire. The Concord Monitor reported Sununu said Obama won “not because of message,” but because the party unified and pushed out their government-dependent base.


“It was because of political organization, political unity, joining together across a broad spectrum of different views within the Democratic Party, and presenting a perception of what they were going to do in a way that was absolutely attractive to their base,” he said.


Damn, but it's sweet to know for the next four years the only way I'll ever see or hear from a little loser like Sununu is if I happen to stumble over to Fox and hear him peddling this line of crap to their more gullible viewers.


There aren't a lot of shopping days 'til Obama Claus comes shimmying down the chimney. I've been nice and naughty so I should be getting plenty o' gifts.


Can't wait! :D
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Remember when Todd Akin planted both of his feet firmly in his mouth when his rapey remarks and Republicans said they were turning off the money pipeline?

Yeah, not so much.

To the bitter end, establishment Republicans maintained Representative Todd Akin, the Republican nominee challenging Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, was dead to them, cut off for his comment that women could not get pregnant in the event of “legitimate rape.”


Turns out he was not so dead.


Newly released campaign finance documents show the National Republican Senatorial Committee transferred $760,000 to the Missouri State Republican Party in the first days of November as the state party opened an ad blitz to try to close the gap with Ms. McCaskill.


In the end, it was not even close. Ms. McCaskill, once considered the most vulnerable senator standing for re-election, crushed Mr. Akin 55 percent to 39 percent.


Nope. Still not getting it. :crazy: