On the GOP

[Stephanie]

Odd-dude takes one phase from Rousseau's work and concludes Rousseau is a socialist.

"Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it by force. So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together, is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity to choose how we ought to live. Might never makes right, despite how often it pretends that it can.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse, and the prescriptive work that is to come. Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Do your homework and read this link:

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

so you aren't a Democrat, you're a socialist.. and you would fit in the Democrat party because they are now only made up of socialist and Communist

 

[Oddball]

Odd-dude takes one phase from Rousseau's work and concludes Rousseau is a socialist.

"Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it by force. So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together, is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity to choose how we ought to live. Might never makes right, despite how often it pretends that it can.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse, and the prescriptive work that is to come. Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Do your homework and read this link:

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I've read Rousseaus Utopian "scoial contract" crap....He's the prototype of the modern socialist.

Your "social contract" is no more real than unicorns and leprechauns.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Odd-dude takes one phase from Rousseau's work and concludes Rousseau is a socialist.

"Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it by force. So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together, is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity to choose how we ought to live. Might never makes right, despite how often it pretends that it can.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse, and the prescriptive work that is to come. Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Do your homework and read this link:

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

so you aren't a Democrat, you're a socialist.. and you would fit in the Democrat party because they are now only made up of socialist and Communist

"Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants"

Of course you didn't read the quote, being willfully ignorant an all. How do the ideas of so many who influenced Jefferson and other founders equate to socialism?

 

[Stephanie]

Odd-dude takes one phase from Rousseau's work and concludes Rousseau is a socialist.

"Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it by force. So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together, is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity to choose how we ought to live. Might never makes right, despite how often it pretends that it can.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse, and the prescriptive work that is to come. Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Do your homework and read this link:

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

so you aren't a Democrat, you're a socialist.. and you would fit in the Democrat party because they are now only made up of socialist and Communist

"Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants"

Of course you didn't read the quote, being willfully ignorant an all. How do the ideas of so many who influenced Jefferson and other founders equate to socialism?

SO I didn't read some quote? you are the "rudest" mf on this board..go talk to your toilet

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

i agree with much of what you say here Wry.....but to say this.......

to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

like the Democrats are any different.....Power is all both these parties care about and anything else be damned.....

 

[The T]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

i agree with much of what you say here Wry.....but to say this.......

to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

like the Democrats are any different.....Power is all both these parties care about and anything else be damned.....

Highlighted for emphasis, and applauded. Bravo.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Odd-dude takes one phase from Rousseau's work and concludes Rousseau is a socialist.

"Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it by force. So, government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together, is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity to choose how we ought to live. Might never makes right, despite how often it pretends that it can.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse, and the prescriptive work that is to come. Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Do your homework and read this link:

Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I've read Rousseaus Utopian "scoial contract" crap....He's the prototype of the modern socialist.

Your "social contract" is no more real than unicorns and leprechauns.

It's not my social contract. Jefferson read Rousseau too and came away with a much different opinion then you. I wonder why (note, no question mark).

 

[Harry Dresden]

I see. You're not admitting to being a member of the GOP, nor of the Democratic Party. So why would you find my comments on the current state of the RP amusing or worth an ad hominem? I'm may be off base, but I smell a self righteous curmudgeon whose allegiance is only to himself and enjoys 'hearing' himself 'talk'.

A thoughtful response would either defend the RP (though it is hard to imagine a thoughtful post defending the RP of today) or, in your case, and argument offering an alternative to the DP and the RP.

Actually, a thoughtful response is no response at all. Your premise is flawed and therefore requires no comment. If anything, it is nothing but a bait and switch to get people to defend what YOU consider the indefensible. Except that what you consider indefensible is itself, an extremist position.

Now you're being ridiculous. My "premise"? I pointed out facts and offered an opinion. You may disagree and LOL or ignore my post. But don't lie and pretend, for example, what the GOP is doing on the issue of abortion isn't an attack on women; what the H. of Rep. is doing on the Immigration issue is not an attack on Latinos.

no its not.....there LOTS of Latinos who where born here that don't particularly care for Illegal immigration themselves and many of them probably vote Democrat.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a Democrat because I believe in the Social Contract, safety nets and a level playing field. The GOP which claims Christianity does nothing to suggest they believe in the teachings of Jesus which I learned in the Catechism

well for sure no Republicans believes in any of those things...a social contract?, so you live in a commune? Republicans see people as individuals not groups, such as Hispanics, gays, women, etc etc like you Democrats that way you can use them...take for instance your all's lovely, war on women...you should look in your own party and clean it up before worrying over the other...It really has become very ugly in their tactics

If you believe a social contract has anything to do with a commune, you're even dumber than I thought.

Are you trying to tell me that communes do not have social contracts?

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

True.

Which leads to the next question: does the GOP Old Guard have the courage and strength of will to stand up to the social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, and radical fiscal right, as did the democrats to the extreme left some 20 years ago?

Since democrats relegated liberals to the political sidelines, they’ve won four of the last six presidential/general elections.

The majority of Americans reject extremism – both left and right.

And does the GOP Old Guard have the courage and strength of will to void the Faustian bargain they struck with the radical right? Or will the gerrymandering, fear of being primaried, and animosity toward diversity and dissent continue to drag down a once great and honorable political party?

oh they did?.....you mean they ousted guys like YOU,Dean,Dudley,Franco,Lakota,Black Label,Chris,TM,Poet,Political Junkie......people like that?.....you people are the reason i left the party 25 years ago.....they were coming in not out....

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

i agree with much of what you say here Wry.....but to say this.......

to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

like the Democrats are any different.....Power is all both these parties care about and anything else be damned.....

That's true, but I was writing about the GOP not the Democratic Party. Some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth. A few are good people who really care about the citizens of the United States. I find more of the few on the Democratic ticket.

 

[Harry Dresden]

My intent (really!) was not to invite the echo chamber to have a circle jerk and post red herrings. Time will tell if the RP can survive or go the way of the Whigs.

A thoughtful response would explain away the wrongheaded remarks by Republican Leaders on women, immigrants, gun control, and foreign policy with examples of common sense solutions to the problems facing our country.

Actually that goes in support of your premise, as the conservative subscribers to this thread illustrate well what is indeed wrong with the GOP, and why it’s likely not to change.

Jones give it up.....you and those like you is whats wrong with the Democratic Party.....

 

[Vox]

That's true, but I was writing about the GOP not the Democratic Party. Some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth. A few are good people who really care about the citizens of the United States. I find more of the few on the Democratic ticket.

Interesting. I find NONE of the honorable kind on the dems ticket.

all dems are of your described breed: some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth.

 

[Harry Dresden]

agreed. They both have too much concentrated power and are easily identified by the big biz lobbyists.

So remind me what the intent of this thread is again? AND incidentally? When will you be posting a similar thread regarding Democrats?

why would I? I never claimed to be a Democrat. I merely choose them as there is no one else to choose because of the two-party system. Certainly you don't think I would side with the Republicans? They seem to be on the way out anyway as the OP asserts. By their own doing, I might add There doesn't seem to be too many groups left that they haven't already offended w/ their rw rhetoric

because you agreed with him when he said both parties should be abolished.......if you think both parties should go you should be an Independent or a third party person.....not someone always defending one of those parties....like you do...so quit your fucking bullshit "Dottie".....you know dam well you suck on the Democrats collective Asses.....

 

[Stephanie]

So remind me what the intent of this thread is again? AND incidentally? When will you be posting a similar thread regarding Democrats?

why would I? I never claimed to be a Democrat. I merely choose them as there is no one else to choose because of the two-party system. Certainly you don't think I would side with the Republicans? They seem to be on the way out anyway as the OP asserts. By their own doing, I might add There doesn't seem to be too many groups left that they haven't already offended w/ their rw rhetoric

because you agreed with him when he said both parties should be abolished.......if you think both parties should go you should be an Independent or a third party person.....not someone always defending one of those parties....like you do...so quit your fucking bullshit "Dottie".....you know dam well you suck on the Democrats collective Asses.....

oh YEAH...

 

[Oddball]

That's true, but I was writing about the GOP not the Democratic Party. Some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth. A few are good people who really care about the citizens of the United States. I find more of the few on the Democratic ticket.

Interesting. I find NONE of the honorable kind on the dems ticket.

all dems are of your described breed: some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth.

I'll give odds that he voted for the Senator who got caught red-handed stealing from the federal till.

Honor indeed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Republican Party (RP) is dying by its own hand. To be viable it needs to weed out extremists and understand a national party needs to represent all United States Citizens. At one time the party leaders pretended to have a big tent open to everyone; once that was proved ridiculous they dropped the tag-line and even the pretext of cultural pluralism.

There is no doubt that the RP is the party of Big Business and holds blue collar workers in disdain. Their policies exploit the low income worker, both non citizen immigrants and Americans citizens, and deceive the middle class with platitudes, false pathos and promises never fulfilled. They obfuscate issues with emotion laden propaganda and misuse words - making them pejoratives - to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

Essentially the RP of today is built on a foundation of mendacity and is little different than the French Aristocracy before 1789. While the phrase, "let them eat cake" is apocryphal it exists today in the policies of the extreme members in GOP leadership, especially on the state level. Attacks on Unionism, demands that the poor pay more in taxes and the 'job creators' pay less, eliminating the minimum wage law, acting as if those in the legislatures know better then do doctors on the needs of health for women and children, building barriers to voting and that anyone who attempts to curtail the abuse of health insurers is a Communist, Socialist or Statist.

Unless the RP wakes up it will find itself a footnote in history.

i agree with much of what you say here Wry.....but to say this.......

to defame anyone who represents a threat to their one goal: Power.

like the Democrats are any different.....Power is all both these parties care about and anything else be damned.....

That's true, but I was writing about the GOP not the Democratic Party. Some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth. A few are good people who really care about the citizens of the United States. I find more of the few on the Democratic ticket.

i dont see any of them like that.....they are great Americans while they are campaigning.......the first timers....as soon as they get elected give them a year or two and they are just like the rest.....the incumbents as soon as they are elected they may try to throw you a bone and then its back to being a useless Politician....

 

[Harry Dresden]

That's true, but I was writing about the GOP not the Democratic Party. Some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth. A few are good people who really care about the citizens of the United States. I find more of the few on the Democratic ticket.

Interesting. I find NONE of the honorable kind on the dems ticket.

all dems are of your described breed: some pols honestly believe the end (their election, reelection) justifies the means (taking bribes, voting the party line, lying) because ultimately they will take the high road and better represent their constituency. Some don't give a damn, they're in it for themselves; and others are using their post as a means to an end - great personal wealth.

i dont see Republicans being any different.....

 

[JoeB131]

Since I espouse to neither this party or the other, I find this post to be quite amusing. You think one party is committing suicide, while you hold the dagger ready to plunge it into the heart of America.

I do believe the GOP is committing political suicide; what you mean by, "while you hold the dagger ready to plunge it into the heart of America" makes no sense.

It should make sense. You have a democrat in the White House. You willfully put that democrat in office twice without possibly considering the wide ranging implications of your decision. That is what I mean by "while you hold the dagger, ready to plunge it into the heart of America" if my euphemisms are too difficult for you to understand, that is something I cannot help you with.

So the scary black man in the White House is the equivlent to a dagger? When the guy really has been nothing but a moderate. He's more honest than Clinton and more competent than Bush.

I think you need to get over yourself.

 

[Dot Com]

So remind me what the intent of this thread is again? AND incidentally? When will you be posting a similar thread regarding Democrats?

why would I? I never claimed to be a Democrat. I merely choose them as there is no one else to choose because of the two-party system. Certainly you don't think I would side with the Republicans? They seem to be on the way out anyway as the OP asserts. By their own doing, I might add There doesn't seem to be too many groups left that they haven't already offended w/ their rw rhetoric

because you agreed with him when he said both parties should be abolished.......if you think both parties should go you should be an Independent or a third party person.....not someone always defending one of those parties....like you do...so quit your fucking bullshit "Dottie".....you know dam well you suck on the Democrats collective Asses.....

I vote to keep Repubs like Mcconnell & Cruz out. Not to mention the t-party tinfoilers like Angle, Buck, & O'Donnell as well. Guilty as charged. Them & their socon, bedroom-policing base I have mentioned that I will prolly stop voting for President if its the same group of wall st/defense contractor lobbyist- owned characters. You?