Dubstepforum.com

Democrats are all talk and then bend to the will of the republicans

For the love of god, just stop using the words democrat and republican.

nowaysj wrote:For the love of god, just stop using the words democrat and republican.

liberals and conservatives? that better oh bearded one?

Donkeys and elephants.

mks wrote:Donkeys and elephants.

heffalumps imo

ehbrums1 wrote:

nowaysj wrote:For the love of god, just stop using the words democrat and republican.

liberals and conservatives? that better oh bearded one?

Oh bearded one says that is worse. And the beard is going gray, so take extra notice.

Jurkhands wrote:

OGLemon wrote:The U.S. needs a real left-wing party to balance the two right wing ones we have now though.

as a guy who grew up in a european direct democracy, multi-party-system it always amazes me how "gop vs democrats" gets treated like a clash of cultures when in essence both of them are neoliberal conservatives. what amazes me even more is how 300million people seem to believe and put up with that bullshit.

You realize its quite difficult to get 300 million people on the same page? There are too many opinions

I think a lot of people are too caught up thinking about this shit to actually live the life the politicians are supposedly ruining.

OGLemon wrote:The U.S. needs a real left-wing party to balance the two right wing ones we have now though.

That's funny, because right-wingers say that the US needs a real right-wing party to balance the two left wing ones.

How are republicans left?

jesslem wrote:How are republicans left?

Gene is an ancap. almost everything is left to him

jesslem wrote:How are republicans left?

Republicans are seen ast left wingers for the following:

Supporting a New Dealist foreign policy of "American exceptionalism and making the world safe for Democracy". Republicans used to be staunchly against invasive foreign policy, this type of foreign policy was introduced by FDR. Former Trotskyist intellectuals further popularized this type of foreign policy in the Republican party under the guise of neo-conservatism.

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Being against 'state nullification' and very shoddy support for state's rights.

Supporting Medicare and Medicaid and the War on Drugs. Which are anti-constitutional.

Expanding government programs and state departments, such as the department of education.

Supporting state-granted marriage licenses.

Supporting a progressive income tax on most of the population.

By the way, the second point was copied from the Communist Manifesto.

I could go on. There are loads of things.

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:How are republicans left?

Republicans are seen ast left wingers for the following:

Supporting a New Dealist foreign policy of "American exceptionalism and making the world safe for Democracy". Republicans used to be staunchly against invasive foreign policy, this type of foreign policy was introduced by FDR. Former Trotskyist intellectuals further popularized this type of foreign policy in the Republican party under the guise of neo-conservatism.

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Being against 'state nullification' and very shoddy support for state's rights.

Supporting Medicare and Medicaid and the War on Drugs. Which are anti-constitutional.

Expanding government programs and state departments, such as the department of education.

Supporting state-granted marriage licenses.

Supporting a progressive income tax on most of the population.

By the way, the second point was copied from the Communist Manifesto.

I could go on. There are loads of things.

You realize that most of those are just decoys to get ignorant poor to vote for them right? The first point is really just about being able to move in and establish their own version of 'democracy' via a generally unelected puppet so that they can benefit the interests of their importers right?
The don't support progressive taxation at all either.
They actively seek to reduce government size, and they largely aim to do so by reducing the department of education. How do you not know this?
Not sure they support medicaid either, their whole thing is cutting down on taxation and passing government responsibility to privately operated entities.

jesslem wrote:You realize that most of those are just decoys to get ignorant poor to vote for them right?

Except, they claim to be against all of these. And their claims are decoys to get self-described "conservatives" to vote for them.

jesslem wrote:The first point is really just about being able to move in and establish their own version of 'democracy' via a generally unelected puppet so that they can benefit the interests of their importers right?

Yeah, which is unconstitutional and against what the founders advocated. Russel Kirk, founder of American conservatism and an Old Right intellectual wrote that George HW Bush should've been tied to the White House lawn for war crimes.

jesslem wrote:The don't support progressive taxation at all either.

Utterly wrong

jesslem wrote:They actively seek to reduce government size, and they largely aim to do so by reducing the department of education. How do you not know this?

What? They expanded the department of education.

Government departments even grew under Reagan:

But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

jesslem wrote:Not sure they support medicaid either, their whole thing is cutting down on taxation and passing government responsibility to privately operated entities.

RONALD Reagan, twice elected on a promise to cut back social programs, may be remembered as the President who set in motion a historic expansion of Medicare, the Federal health insurance program for 31 million elderly and disabled people.

The entire logic that Republicans would diminish their own power by shrinking the state is ludicrous. Democrats lie about being pro-labor to get elected. Republicans lie about being small government and free market to get elected.

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:The don't support progressive taxation at all either.

Utterly wrong

Mate, are you sure you know that we're talking about republicans and not democrats?

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:They actively seek to reduce government size, and they largely aim to do so by reducing the department of education. How do you not know this?

What? They expanded the department of education.

Government departments even grew under Reagan:

But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I'm speaking about matters of the present world. That was only done in attempt to keep up academically with the USSR, which they no longer have to because it doesn't exist. Hence the shift. The parties flip flop a lot, hence the republican's efforts against slavery in the late 1800s and their practicable enforcement of it through reducing minimum wages, ala today.

Don't get it twisted man, it's not like they'd reduce anything like military or policing, just the things that you need in order to have a healthy, educated, and otherwise civilized society.

jesslem wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:The don't support progressive taxation at all either.

Utterly wrong

Mate, are you sure you know that we're talking about republicans and not democrats?

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:They actively seek to reduce government size, and they largely aim to do so by reducing the department of education. How do you not know this?

What? They expanded the department of education.

Government departments even grew under Reagan:

But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I'm speaking about matters of the present world. That was only done in attempt to keep up academically with the USSR, which they no longer have to because it doesn't exist. Hence the shift. The parties flip flop a lot, hence the republican's efforts against slavery in the late 1800s and their practicable enforcement of it through reducing minimum wages, ala today.

Don't get it twisted man, it's not like they'd reduce anything like military or policing, just the things that you need in order to have a healthy, educated, and otherwise civilized society.

Refute my logic.

GOP's "small government" talk is hollow

The growth did not just take place with national security spending but with domestic programs as well. Even as the administration fought to reduce the cost of certain programs by preventing cost-of-living increases in benefits, in many other areas of policy -- such as Medicare prescription drug benefits, federal education standards and agricultural subsidies -- the federal government expanded by leaps and bounds. And then there are the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Federal spending stood at about $1.9 trillion in 2000, when Democrat Bill Clinton ended his presidency. In his final year in office, Bush proposed to spend $3.1 trillion for fiscal year 2009. President Obama's budget proposal for fiscal 2010 is $3.6 trillion.

Nor can Republicans blame a Democratic Congress for being responsible for these trends. Much of the expansion took place between 2002 and 2006, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes was writing about "big government conservatism" back in 2003.

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:The don't support progressive taxation at all either.

Utterly wrong

Mate, are you sure you know that we're talking about republicans and not democrats?

Genevieve wrote:

jesslem wrote:They actively seek to reduce government size, and they largely aim to do so by reducing the department of education. How do you not know this?

What? They expanded the department of education.

Government departments even grew under Reagan:

But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I'm speaking about matters of the present world. That was only done in attempt to keep up academically with the USSR, which they no longer have to because it doesn't exist. Hence the shift. The parties flip flop a lot, hence the republican's efforts against slavery in the late 1800s and their practicable enforcement of it through reducing minimum wages, ala today.

Don't get it twisted man, it's not like they'd reduce anything like military or policing, just the things that you need in order to have a healthy, educated, and otherwise civilized society.

Refute my logic.

Explain it, I wasn't aware of it's presence in the post.

It's already there. tl:dr of how to do it is find something that says something different.

OGLemon wrote:Now the question is, "how do we return the power to the people". or even if we can

http://wolf-pac.com/