out of touch republicans

Bentleyspop

aerial wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

grooveme wrote:

I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.

Totally agree. I really wonder how anyone can defend a group of old white men interested only in helping out other old white men, while shitting on everyone else.

Okay.... just wondering why this "old white men" phrase gets a pass on not being raciest and bigoted, oh and lets not forget hate monger and just plain haters? WTH? :?

As an "old white man" I can not only recognize the GOP as the party of old white men I can easily use the term old white men

aerial

Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?

...
Probably because... for the most part... it is true.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

aerial wrote:

Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?

seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

it's no different than saying Pearl Jam's fanbase are a bunch of "middle aged white people". it's not racist or hateful, it's a fact.

aerial

grooveme wrote:

I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.

They all take your money..Rich guys are always in power. Obama is half white isn't he? And he is old by most peoples definition..... so it makes no sense to use race to find out who is the liar and thief. I am sick of all the colors of humans taking my money and WASTING it.

grooveme

MG79478 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Gimmie, it should be 100% for both being out of touch. People are kidding themselves.

Amen!

grooveme wrote:

I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.

yeah, you're smack dab in the center! :crazy:

Why can't someone who needs help, help themselves? It's a crazy idea? Why it is the government’s responsibility to help everyone? For the record, who is going to pay for all of this help....? Maybe the corporations and their evil profits! They are also the ones who create jobs for everyone so they can make a living. The government has made taxes so high that we are lucky that any corporations are still in America. I don't know when "profit" became such a dirty word. If you owned a business, wouldn’t you want to maximize your profit? Or would you just want to make enough to barely get by, and turn the rest over to “help” others? The demonization of success by the left is slowly killing this country.

Part of being a part of society is contributing to common causes such as defense, roads, education (do you want to live in a country full of idiots?), and also to protection of natural resources for all of us. And to help those who need help. I am quite sure that not everyone on public assistance is a lazy bum. I don't want to live in a third world country where the "haves" huddle in guarded estates, greedily hanging on to their money and profits while others suffer in the streets, like in Central and South America and elsewhere. This is where we are heading, if the Republicans have their way. BTW, I do own a business (I am a partner in a medical practice). And we don't maximize profit at the expense of others. We could easily hire workers at low wages and without benefits, and cut corners, but we don't, because that would be WRONG. We are doing fine, and adequately rewarded for our efforts, at least for now. I don't believe in doing the wrong thing so I can make a few more bucks. Unfortunately, most big corporations do not share my beliefs. Sure, they provide jobs, unfortunately a lot of these are in China and India, so they can maximize profit. This does not give them the right to run our government for their own benefit. And the tax rate here is not high. The corporations hardly pay any taxes.

Lower taxes would be great for me, but I won't support the Republicans unless they convince me that they are concerned about my civil rights, the environment, appropriate regulations on businesses to protect workers and the environment, etc. And convince me that they are not trying to restrict my liberties based on their bible. At the end of the day, I'd rather have clean water, clean air, and a decent safety net than a few more dollars in my pocket, or a more expensive car or bigger house. That said, I'm more libertarian than anything. I don't think the Democrats are much better. Both are for big government, they only differ in who they would benefit with my tax dollars

aerial

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

aerial wrote:

Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?

seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?

Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.

would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists

grooveme

aerial wrote:

grooveme wrote:

I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.

They all take your money..Rich guys are always in power. Obama is half white isn't he? And he is old by most peoples definition..... so it makes no sense to use race to find out who is the liar and thief. I am sick of all the colors of humans taking my money and WASTING it.

Totally agree. Both parties are for big government and both are wasting our money AND driving up the deficit. But I can't abide the republican desire to turn women's rights back 40 years, install a christian theocracy and demonize science (teaching creationism in the schools, abstinence only sex ed,etc), or let corporations regulate themselves and plunder our natural resources

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.

would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists

...
Question: WHY would a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists?

grooveme

aerial wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

aerial wrote:

Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?

seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?

Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.

would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists

I was not trying to denigrate rich white men in any way. My point is that any other demographic is on the losing end when it comes to typical republican policy

grooveme

Cosmo wrote:

aerial wrote:

Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.

would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists

...
Question: WHY would a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists?

If he was holding his nose and voting his pocketbook only

Hugh Freaking Dillon

aerial wrote:

Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.

would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists

it's not derogatory. if someone said "old rich h*nkeys", then yes, we'd have a problem.

whgarrett

I ain't no old rich honkey. I'm a hard pipe hitting cracker straight out of the hills of Eastern Kentucky. Bring it.

gimmesometruth27

violence against women act passes the house.

138 Nay votes, all by republicans...


:shock:


:fp:

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

violence against women act passes the house.

138 Nay votes, all by republicans...


:shock:


:fp:

I don't think passing it will matter since the funding will be cut tomorrow.

gimmesometruth27

jeb bush has flip flopped on his immigration position twice in the last 48 hours...


come on jeb, you know the politically expedient move to make. your family has been doing it for generations.

i guess the "self deportation" idea failed in the 2012 election, so why would you support it again, even if it was for only 24 hours?? :fp:

VINNY GOOMBA

I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:

"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.

S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.

The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.

First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.

Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.

Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.

Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.

The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.

The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."

Sounds reasonable to me.

Bentleyspop

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

jeb bush has flip flopped on his immigration position twice in the last 48 hours...


come on jeb, you know the politically expedient move to make. your family has been doing it for generations.

i guess the "self deportation" idea failed in the 2012 election, so why would you support it again, even if it was for only 24 hours?? :fp:

PLease get your terminology right....

Jeb Bush is a regressive and as such he CHANGED HIS MIND
Democrats aka progressives are the ones that FLIP FLOP

PJ_Soul

Speaking of "out of touch" Republicans, there is also this guy....

http://www.upworthy.com/a-politician-at ... him?c=upw1