Has the GOP gone farther to the Right?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 4:25 PM GMT
    Radical anti-choice legislation.
    Attacks on Planned Parenthood.
    Personhood Amendments.
    Refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
    Proposing to attack Iran.
    Birther movement.
    School vouchers for religious schools and other attacks on the wall between church and state.
    Anti-evolution legislation.
    Allowing religious adoption organizations who receive federal money to discriminate against gay couples.
    Climate change and evolution denial.
    Unfair attacks on public workers and public schools.
    Drug-testing (only) welfare recipients.
    Blind support for Israel.
    Cuts to social safety nets and programs.
    Banning gay marriage and reinstating DADT
    Cruel immigration policies.
    Voter ID laws.
    And looser gun control laws.

    Above is a list of issues that many republicans across the country believe in or have either enacted, tried to enact, or wish to enact into state or federal law--in many ways there seems to be a regression in various policies.

    In some states its getting easier to buy a gun than to vote. Where are the moderate republicans who understand the threat of climate change? Why are republicans never willing to raise taxes at all? Why weren’t they concerned about the national debt when we were at war in two countries? Why is there always enough money for war and never enough for education or healthcare? Why is funding for higher education being gutted in many states? Why do many conservatives care more about a fetus or zygote than the millions of people who do not have healthcare? Why was there a historic number of anti-choice legislation across the country in 2011? Why can’t Mitt Romney be who he truly is, a moderate?

    We need more Snowe and less Bachmann.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 4:35 PM GMT
    The Repugs have screwed themselves with the Hispanic, woman, and gay vote. ...and all their friends! :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 4:38 PM GMT
    I love the OPs observation that Republicans make it easier to buy a gun than to vote. Is it possible they favor a nation ruled by bullets rather than ballots?

    This is not a new dilemma. The US faced this before, some 80 years ago, when lawlessness was a serious threat to our nation. So that Hollywood made melodramatic movies that highlighted the problem.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 15, 2012 4:52 PM GMT
    We need more Snowe and less Bachmann

    Except Ms Snowe just announced that she will be retiring rather than continue to fight with the American Taliban

    And that is what the republican party has become ...... Our own domestic version of a theocracy .... Where we call sexually active young women sluts and prostitutes
    .... Where Medical facilities that provide woman's health are politicized and Bombed
    .... where Doctors are gunned down in their own homes and Churches
    ..... And where people who ARE educated and actually know the science behind what they are fighting against .... Still deny basic Scientific fact because they see it as an affront against their chosen God

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    They've gone farther to the "right" on social issues and too far to the left with economic and border protection.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 5:48 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidThey've gone farther to the "right" on social issues and too far to the left with economic and border protection.

    They've gone to the left economically?
    Twinkles, doll, put down the bong.


    Or maybe you're just having premature senility? Ever heard of the tea party? Do you even remember why it started originally and what they were upset about? Because of Bush policies and other big spenders like Santorum who went right along, even championing, leftist interventionist programs leading up to the housing crisis. Of course, it's staggering how they forgot so quickly what they were protesting and now most of the "tea party" is just a bunch of religious whacks calling themselves conservative.

    Congress shouldn't have gotten involved at all with influencing the course of the housing market. How about the implications of FDIC? Anything to do with a government manipulation of markets or implied financial backing for financial institutions is NOT "rightwing" in the least, whether or not those responsible call themselves "R" or "D" matters not.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Mar 15, 2012 7:02 PM GMT
    Back off, buys! All they've done is declare war on America! Oh, and women!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 8:40 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 8:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said Ever heard of the tea party?
    Yep.. the party of "hell no! Its our way or the highway and democracy and compromise be damned! The bible says so!"icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 8:45 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?


    Now? I've always been critical of FDIC and its role in so much bank failure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 8:46 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"


    I'm not completely opposed to any room for banking security measures, but they would be less likely to engage in the risky behavior to begin precipitating a failure because they would know that there's no taxpayer safety net to save them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 9:01 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"


    I'm not completely opposed to any room for banking security measures, but they would be less likely to engage in the risky behavior to begin precipitating a failure because they would know that there's no taxpayer safety net to save them.
    Well then.. how do you propose to tangle with that?

    WITHOUT banking RULES and laws, Without enforcement the mice will play. THEN how do you save/saftynet the 'innocent' depositor (account holder)?

    Uh Mock, that means 'government' which equals law enforcement which is 'government'.. goes round and round.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 9:17 PM GMT
    tazzari saidBack off, buys! All they've done is declare war on America! Oh, and (the political priorities of liberal) women!


    FIFY
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Mar 15, 2012 11:30 PM GMT
    Larkin said
    tazzari saidBack off, buys! All they've done is declare war on America! Oh, and (the political priorities of liberal) women!


    FIFY


    Right, because no Republican woman has ever used any form of birth control.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Mar 15, 2012 11:49 PM GMT
    Larkin said
    tazzari saidBack off, buys! All they've done is declare war on America! Oh, and (the political priorities of liberal) women!


    FIFY


    I never knew that only liberal, political women didn't like vaginal probes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 12:03 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"


    I'm not completely opposed to any room for banking security measures, but they would be less likely to engage in the risky behavior to begin precipitating a failure because they would know that there's no taxpayer safety net to save them.
    Well then.. how do you propose to tangle with that?

    WITHOUT banking RULES and laws, Without enforcement the mice will play. THEN how do you save/saftynet the 'innocent' depositor (account holder)?

    Uh Mock, that means 'government' which equals law enforcement which is 'government'.. goes round and round.


    No one said without rules and laws. Tort reform covers most damages people suffer. If the bank makes the individual suffer then they too will suffer according to the law for any wrongdoing they have committed.

    You think really superficially about everything, but one thing you know for sure, that people who work in government are angels and everyone else is greedy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"


    I'm not completely opposed to any room for banking security measures, but they would be less likely to engage in the risky behavior to begin precipitating a failure because they would know that there's no taxpayer safety net to save them.
    Well then.. how do you propose to tangle with that?

    WITHOUT banking RULES and laws, Without enforcement the mice will play. THEN how do you save/saftynet the 'innocent' depositor (account holder)?

    Uh Mock, that means 'government' which equals law enforcement which is 'government'.. goes round and round.


    No one said without rules and laws. Tort reform covers most damages people suffer. If the bank makes the individual suffer then they too will suffer according to the law for any wrongdoing they have committed.

    You think really superficially about everything, but one thing you know for sure, that people who work in government are angels and everyone else is greedy.
    Really? how do you KNOW that? Being a wee bit presumptuous eh?

    And btw, go do your research on "tort reform" before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 1:27 AM GMT
    Douchebag said
    tazzari saidBack off, buys! All they've done is declare war on America! Oh, and (the political priorities of liberal) women!


    FIFY


    FIFY
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 1:28 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"


    I'm not completely opposed to any room for banking security measures, but they would be less likely to engage in the risky behavior to begin precipitating a failure because they would know that there's no taxpayer safety net to save them.
    Well then.. how do you propose to tangle with that?

    WITHOUT banking RULES and laws, Without enforcement the mice will play. THEN how do you save/saftynet the 'innocent' depositor (account holder)?

    Uh Mock, that means 'government' which equals law enforcement which is 'government'.. goes round and round.


    No one said without rules and laws. Tort reform covers most damages people suffer. If the bank makes the individual suffer then they too will suffer according to the law for any wrongdoing they have committed.

    You think really superficially about everything, but one thing you know for sure, that people who work in government are angels and everyone else is greedy.
    Really? how do you KNOW that? Being a wee bit presumptuous eh?

    And btw, go do your research on "tort reform" before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.


    Yeah... Mock. You don't really understand tort reform if you think that's true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 1:33 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    mocktwinkie said
    TropicalMark said
    JPtheBITCH saidThat's interesting. You are now opposed to the FDIC?
    Can you imagine Mocks screaming and bitching if the bank he had his checking account with failed and he was told "sorry, aint no money left. You're shit out of luck!"


    I'm not completely opposed to any room for banking security measures, but they would be less likely to engage in the risky behavior to begin precipitating a failure because they would know that there's no taxpayer safety net to save them.
    Well then.. how do you propose to tangle with that?

    WITHOUT banking RULES and laws, Without enforcement the mice will play. THEN how do you save/saftynet the 'innocent' depositor (account holder)?

    Uh Mock, that means 'government' which equals law enforcement which is 'government'.. goes round and round.


    No one said without rules and laws. Tort reform covers most damages people suffer. If the bank makes the individual suffer then they too will suffer according to the law for any wrongdoing they have committed.

    You think really superficially about everything, but one thing you know for sure, that people who work in government are angels and everyone else is greedy.
    Really? how do you KNOW that? Being a wee bit presumptuous eh?

    And btw, go do your research on "tort reform" before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.


    Yeah... Mock. You don't really understand tort reform if you think that's true.


    My bad, I meant tort law. I have no idea why I typed "reform". lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 1:39 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidThey've gone farther to the "right" on social issues and too far to the left with economic and border protection.

    They've gone to the left economically?
    Twinkles, doll, put down the bong.


    Or maybe you're just having premature senility? Ever heard of the tea party? Do you even remember why it started originally and what they were upset about? Because of Bush policies and other big spenders like Santorum who went right along, even championing, leftist interventionist programs leading up to the housing crisis. Of course, it's staggering how they forgot so quickly what they were protesting and now most of the "tea party" is just a bunch of religious whacks calling themselves conservative.

    Congress shouldn't have gotten involved at all with influencing the course of the housing market. How about the implications of FDIC? Anything to do with a government manipulation of markets or implied financial backing for financial institutions is NOT "rightwing" in the least, whether or not those responsible call themselves "R" or "D" matters not.


    I think you are confusing libertarianism with conservatism. involvment in the markets didn't all just start with Bush. The question is the degree to which government should be involved in markets. Most conservatives in the past did not have such an absolutist view on things.

    And the Tea Party is so extreme that they think government is the bane of humanity... unless our government is blowing up countries or kicking out those smelly illegals and their bratty children.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 1:45 AM GMT
    Please be respectful guys! Why are people always throwing around personal attacks?

    I generally like to understand the views of others better, and its hard to do when flame wars ignite constantly across the forums.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 1:49 AM GMT
    Larkin said
    tazzari saidBack off, buys! All they've done is declare war on America! Oh, and (the political priorities of liberal) women!


    FIFY


    Yes because everyone knows that liberal women love to have their abortions and birth control... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2012 7:00 AM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidRadical anti-choice legislation.
    Attacks on Planned Parenthood.
    Personhood Amendments.
    Refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
    Proposing to attack Iran.
    Birther movement.
    School vouchers for religious schools and other attacks on the wall between church and state.
    Anti-evolution legislation.
    Allowing religious adoption organizations who receive federal money to discriminate against gay couples.
    Climate change and evolution denial.
    Unfair attacks on public workers and public schools.
    Drug-testing (only) welfare recipients.
    Blind support for Israel.
    Cuts to social safety nets and programs.
    Banning gay marriage and reinstating DADT
    Cruel immigration policies.
    Voter ID laws.
    And looser gun control laws.

    Above is a list of issues that many republicans across the country believe in or have either enacted, tried to enact, or wish to enact into state or federal law--in many ways there seems to be a regression in various policies.

    In some states its getting easier to buy a gun than to vote. Where are the moderate republicans who understand the threat of climate change? Why are republicans never willing to raise taxes at all? Why weren’t they concerned about the national debt when we were at war in two countries? Why is there always enough money for war and never enough for education or healthcare? Why is funding for higher education being gutted in many states? Why do many conservatives care more about a fetus or zygote than the millions of people who do not have healthcare? Why was there a historic number of anti-choice legislation across the country in 2011? Why can’t Mitt Romney be who he truly is, a moderate?

    We need more Snowe and less Bachmann.





    Thanks for posting this.

    Sadly it seems that the only way the Repubs can be made to understand that they're on the wrong track and that they're out of synch with mainstream America is by going to the polls next November and booting as many Repubs as possible - out of office.

    Only a walloping big loss in the election will get the Repubs to reevaluate what they've been doing and get them to move back to the moderate middle.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 16, 2012 9:52 AM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    Radical anti-choice legislation.
    Attacks on Planned Parenthood.
    Personhood Amendments.
    Refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
    Proposing to attack Iran.
    Birther movement.
    School vouchers for religious schools and other attacks on the wall between church and state.
    Anti-evolution legislation.
    Allowing religious adoption organizations who receive federal money to discriminate against gay couples.
    Climate change and evolution denial.
    Unfair attacks on public workers and public schools.
    Drug-testing (only) welfare recipients.
    Blind support for Israel.
    Cuts to social safety nets and programs.
    Banning gay marriage and reinstating DADT
    Cruel immigration policies.
    Voter ID laws.
    And looser gun control laws.


    But this is what they want all along

    Where ten years ago these items would have brought a WTF response

    NOW .... we have sane people actually discussing them