Why Are Republicans At War With Reality?

backseatLover12

BS44325 said:

backseatLover12 said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

That's right, " take your issues and go somewhere more conveniently out of my way so I don't have to deal with you."

This is what you and BS are saying.

Nope. Not what I'm saying.

Yeah, pretty much. You don't want to see it, or be inconvenienced by it, so you propose it's out of Main Street and over in the park area... Where social issues "belong". We all hear you...

If all social issues were nearly placed where stars quo would like, none of it would gain local attention, let alone national attention... The very issues you don't like to divide people, hedonist, you are merely dividing.

Apparently, our history of social change by demonstrating in the street, would have had no or little effect if they did the status quo idea of keeping it safely and quietly in the park. Good thing they practiced civil disobedience like a proper citizen.

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

backseatLover12

Hedonist, your emotions are showing, getting defensive again?

BS44325

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

I guess we'll just see this one differently, gambs. An old road can be outdated, but not necessarily every time.

The times, they have already a-changed.

So, they shouldn't continue to change?
These are the same arguments that the older generation uses against the youth seeking change every couple decades.
The same arguments that were used against suffrage demonstrations, civil rights marches, Vietnam protests and so on...

If these youth were seeking change then they would vote for change but instead they vote in lockstep for the democratic party in their local community. Change won't come when you live in a one party town and that party takes you for granted.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

backseatLover12 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

callen said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the answer is very simple.

the world, and this country is changing. republicans do not want change. they do not want the status quo to change. as a strategy, they lie and lie and lie and deny deny deny, as if being dishonest and being in denial will make the changes go away.

look at the changes since 2001.

we are war weary and do not want war. republicans have never met a war they didn't like.
american has always been tight with israel. many americans are waking up. not the republicans.
the majority of americans want gays to be able to marry. republicans don't.
majority of americans want legal marijuana. republicans don't.
a vast majority of americans feel that climate change is man made and want action on global warming. republicans don't
most americans want religion out of politics. republicans want the 2 to be hand in hand.
most americans want the super wealthy to pay more in taxes. republicans don't.
most americans oppose citizens united. republicans feel that money is speech.
most americans want abortion to be legal and convenient to have if necessary. republicans don't.
most americans want an increase in minimum wage. republicans don't.
most americans want wall street reform. republicans don't.
more and more americans want medicare for all, or a single payer insurance system. republicans don't.

there are more, but these are the few that just popped to mind.

look at that list. republicans are on the wrong side of every one of them, and as a result, on the wrong side of history.

if you are a party who sees the writing on the wall in a changing world and you want to stop the change, what are you going to do? lie and deny and hope it goes away.

Derailed and think Gimmies post was spot on for this thread.

I am not sure it is spot on. I want less government telling me what to do and both Dems and Repubs seem to think they know what is right for you and me. So if you want some politician telling you how to live have at it.

Gimme's post is spot on for this thread. Frank's? His is off topic. We are discussing republicans and how they are at war with reality…

In starting this thread, it is about the insistence of a political party to live in never never land rather than to get with it and address real issues with realistic strategies. They do not.

Baltimore is liberal reality. It is what happens when you let progressives run a city for 50 years. The same thing happened to Detroit. Abandoned downtown cores, horrible schools, tons of poverty, hopelessness. Not a republican in site. Practice all the civil disobedience you want but nothing will change until you leave your failed policies behind. Deal with that reality.

And your explanation for the shining beacons of success that are the red states of the south? Not a Democrat in sight and yet tons of poverty, hopelessness, and the highest rates of government dependence in the states. By far.
Failed policies. Deal with that reality as well.

Do you seriously not listen to Rush and Hannity? You jump into nearly every discussion with the same arguments I hear on those shows, nearly verbatim and within a day or two of tthem.

I don't listen to either...sorry. Watch Morning Joe on MSNBC every morning and Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox when I can but that's about it for me.

And without a doubt the economies and job opportunities are better in pretty much every "red" state. Does that mean they don't have poverty? Of course not but there is a reason why New York, Illinois, Maryland, California etc are going down the toilet while Texas and other states are growing. Liberal policies in the era of Hope and Change are imploding.

Whatever drugs you are on, you need to share with the rest of us!

benjs

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

While disruption is what leads to change (I agree about that, rgambs), I agree with hedonist that there ought to be limits. The Tamil protests in Toronto, for example, stationed themselves on an intersection which explicitly blocked access to a hospital's emergency entrance. I'm curious to hear whether you think that's justifiable, rgambs.

PJfanwillneverleave1

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

BS44325

backseatLover12 said:

BS44325 said:

backseatLover12 said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

That's right, " take your issues and go somewhere more conveniently out of my way so I don't have to deal with you."

This is what you and BS are saying.

Nope. Not what I'm saying.

Yeah, pretty much. You don't want to see it, or be inconvenienced by it, so you propose it's out of Main Street and over in the park area... Where social issues "belong". We all hear you...

If all social issues were nearly placed where stars quo would like, none of it would gain local attention, let alone national attention... The very issues you don't like to divide people, hedonist, you are merely dividing.

Apparently, our history of social change by demonstrating in the street, would have had no or little effect if they did the status quo idea of keeping it safely and quietly in the park. Good thing they practiced civil disobedience like a proper citizen.

Again. Nope. Not what I'm saying.

rgambs

benjs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

While disruption is what leads to change (I agree about that, rgambs), I agree with hedonist that there ought to be limits. The Tamil protests in Toronto, for example, stationed themselves on an intersection which explicitly blocked access to a hospital's emergency entrance. I'm curious to hear whether you think that's justifiable, rgambs.

Intentionally blocking a hospital? That's going way too far. Blocking city hall or a major corporate HQ...good stuff lol

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

backseatLover12 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

callen said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the answer is very simple.

the world, and this country is changing. republicans do not want change. they do not want the status quo to change. as a strategy, they lie and lie and lie and deny deny deny, as if being dishonest and being in denial will make the changes go away.

look at the changes since 2001.

we are war weary and do not want war. republicans have never met a war they didn't like.
american has always been tight with israel. many americans are waking up. not the republicans.
the majority of americans want gays to be able to marry. republicans don't.
majority of americans want legal marijuana. republicans don't.
a vast majority of americans feel that climate change is man made and want action on global warming. republicans don't
most americans want religion out of politics. republicans want the 2 to be hand in hand.
most americans want the super wealthy to pay more in taxes. republicans don't.
most americans oppose citizens united. republicans feel that money is speech.
most americans want abortion to be legal and convenient to have if necessary. republicans don't.
most americans want an increase in minimum wage. republicans don't.
most americans want wall street reform. republicans don't.
more and more americans want medicare for all, or a single payer insurance system. republicans don't.

there are more, but these are the few that just popped to mind.

look at that list. republicans are on the wrong side of every one of them, and as a result, on the wrong side of history.

if you are a party who sees the writing on the wall in a changing world and you want to stop the change, what are you going to do? lie and deny and hope it goes away.

Derailed and think Gimmies post was spot on for this thread.

I am not sure it is spot on. I want less government telling me what to do and both Dems and Repubs seem to think they know what is right for you and me. So if you want some politician telling you how to live have at it.

Gimme's post is spot on for this thread. Frank's? His is off topic. We are discussing republicans and how they are at war with reality…

In starting this thread, it is about the insistence of a political party to live in never never land rather than to get with it and address real issues with realistic strategies. They do not.

Baltimore is liberal reality. It is what happens when you let progressives run a city for 50 years. The same thing happened to Detroit. Abandoned downtown cores, horrible schools, tons of poverty, hopelessness. Not a republican in site. Practice all the civil disobedience you want but nothing will change until you leave your failed policies behind. Deal with that reality.

And your explanation for the shining beacons of success that are the red states of the south? Not a Democrat in sight and yet tons of poverty, hopelessness, and the highest rates of government dependence in the states. By far.
Failed policies. Deal with that reality as well.

Do you seriously not listen to Rush and Hannity? You jump into nearly every discussion with the same arguments I hear on those shows, nearly verbatim and within a day or two of tthem.

I don't listen to either...sorry. Watch Morning Joe on MSNBC every morning and Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox when I can but that's about it for me.

And without a doubt the economies and job opportunities are better in pretty much every "red" state. Does that mean they don't have poverty? Of course not but there is a reason why New York, Illinois, Maryland, California etc are going down the toilet while Texas and other states are growing. Liberal policies in the era of Hope and Change are imploding.

Whatever drugs you are on, you need to share with the rest of us!

It's called Liberty. It's an inhalational.

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

Meetings and discussions first, then take your concise message to the streets for disruption.

PJfanwillneverleave1

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

Meetings and discussions first, then take your concise message to the streets for disruption.

Before leaving the meetings and discussions would an agreement be in place as to where and how to deliver the message to the streets?

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

Meetings and discussions first, then take your concise message to the streets for disruption.

Before leaving the meetings and discussions would an agreement be in place as to where and how to deliver the message to the streets?

Ideally, yes.

BS44325

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

Meetings and discussions first, then take your concise message to the streets for disruption.

Ahhh yes...disruption. Ferguson was disrupted and now businesses have abandoned it. Baltimore was disrupted and you will see business leave again. Try to improve the employment picture with all your disruption. You perpetuate the poverty you so deeply despise.

PJfanwillneverleave1

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

Meetings and discussions first, then take your concise message to the streets for disruption.

Before leaving the meetings and discussions would an agreement be in place as to where and how to deliver the message to the streets?

Ideally, yes.

So can we agree that societal issues ideally can be settled through discussions until a resolve is found.

backseatLover12

rgambs said:

benjs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

While disruption is what leads to change (I agree about that, rgambs), I agree with hedonist that there ought to be limits. The Tamil protests in Toronto, for example, stationed themselves on an intersection which explicitly blocked access to a hospital's emergency entrance. I'm curious to hear whether you think that's justifiable, rgambs.

Intentionally blocking a hospital? That's going way too far. Blocking city hall or a major corporate HQ...good stuff lol

Yes!

hedonist

backseatLover12 said:

Hedonist, your emotions are showing, getting defensive again?

Not defensive by any means - chuckling a bit, actually. Never had someone come at me like this throughout my years here.

I'm not sure when or where this strange hard-on for me began, but it'd be great for you, me and the rest of the members if you kept it to yourself.

Back on topic, I appreciate where gambs is coming from, as I do with benjs' getting what I was saying.

Sometimes it feels tough to get a point across that wide field

backseatLover12

Keep your emotions about me to yourself.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

backseatLover12 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

callen said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the answer is very simple.

the world, and this country is changing. republicans do not want change. they do not want the status quo to change. as a strategy, they lie and lie and lie and deny deny deny, as if being dishonest and being in denial will make the changes go away.

look at the changes since 2001.

we are war weary and do not want war. republicans have never met a war they didn't like.
american has always been tight with israel. many americans are waking up. not the republicans.
the majority of americans want gays to be able to marry. republicans don't.
majority of americans want legal marijuana. republicans don't.
a vast majority of americans feel that climate change is man made and want action on global warming. republicans don't
most americans want religion out of politics. republicans want the 2 to be hand in hand.
most americans want the super wealthy to pay more in taxes. republicans don't.
most americans oppose citizens united. republicans feel that money is speech.
most americans want abortion to be legal and convenient to have if necessary. republicans don't.
most americans want an increase in minimum wage. republicans don't.
most americans want wall street reform. republicans don't.
more and more americans want medicare for all, or a single payer insurance system. republicans don't.

there are more, but these are the few that just popped to mind.

look at that list. republicans are on the wrong side of every one of them, and as a result, on the wrong side of history.

if you are a party who sees the writing on the wall in a changing world and you want to stop the change, what are you going to do? lie and deny and hope it goes away.

Derailed and think Gimmies post was spot on for this thread.

I am not sure it is spot on. I want less government telling me what to do and both Dems and Repubs seem to think they know what is right for you and me. So if you want some politician telling you how to live have at it.

Gimme's post is spot on for this thread. Frank's? His is off topic. We are discussing republicans and how they are at war with reality…

In starting this thread, it is about the insistence of a political party to live in never never land rather than to get with it and address real issues with realistic strategies. They do not.

Baltimore is liberal reality. It is what happens when you let progressives run a city for 50 years. The same thing happened to Detroit. Abandoned downtown cores, horrible schools, tons of poverty, hopelessness. Not a republican in site. Practice all the civil disobedience you want but nothing will change until you leave your failed policies behind. Deal with that reality.

And your explanation for the shining beacons of success that are the red states of the south? Not a Democrat in sight and yet tons of poverty, hopelessness, and the highest rates of government dependence in the states. By far.
Failed policies. Deal with that reality as well.

Do you seriously not listen to Rush and Hannity? You jump into nearly every discussion with the same arguments I hear on those shows, nearly verbatim and within a day or two of tthem.

I don't listen to either...sorry. Watch Morning Joe on MSNBC every morning and Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox when I can but that's about it for me.

And without a doubt the economies and job opportunities are better in pretty much every "red" state. Does that mean they don't have poverty? Of course not but there is a reason why New York, Illinois, Maryland, California etc are going down the toilet while Texas and other states are growing. Liberal policies in the era of Hope and Change are imploding.

Whatever drugs you are on, you need to share with the rest of us!

It's called Liberty. It's an inhalational.

I prefer facts...those pesky things that show the higher rates of poverty, government dependence, unemployment, and so on.

Texas and Florida are notable exceptions... Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and so on... Shining examples of the success of Republican governance for sure!

rgambs

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Hold a rally in a park, hold a rally in the dark. Just make sure you aren't a disruption...sorry, but disruption is what leads to change, not words spoken from a place that is too easy to ignore.
It's an insult to those who are racially profiled and abused to say this movement is misguided. People rag on the young generation for being apathetic, but as soon as they put their money on the barrel they are misguided and not genuine.

The protests here a couple of months ago involved many walking en masse on a local freeway at night. I don't doubt some were sincere in their efforts, but how stupid to put yourself - and others who are just trying to get home - at such risk?

I don't have the answers, but to incur the wrath and jeopardize the safety of others? Seems fucked up.

And when I talk about wrath, it's spoken more to those who need the police, EMT's, firefighters as quickly as possible - who are either trying to preserve peace at the protest site or can't get through the gathering itself.

(also aware of the irony that could be taken from the above statement)

Think of all the greatest moments throughout world history when a people stood for change and made an impact...
It's the nature of civil disobedience, and it's the only way it is effective.

Occupy Wall Street went well don't you think? -very effective.

Not effective, but I don't see the relevance. Disruption is not the only factor that creates success, you also need some organization and a clear message...both of which were severely lacking.

So would the occupy movement better been served doing it elsewhere perhaps through meetings and discussions on a more stable podium? - council if you will

Meetings and discussions first, then take your concise message to the streets for disruption.

Ahhh yes...disruption. Ferguson was disrupted and now businesses have abandoned it. Baltimore was disrupted and you will see business leave again. Try to improve the employment picture with all your disruption. You perpetuate the poverty you so deeply despise.

This is a stretch. You are talking about micro economics at the smallest level and the discussion is about macro economics at the highest level.