How Radical Republicans Plan to Destroy America?

[Reverend Rick]

Becoming a social animal was a survival strategy that eventually allowed us to trade brawn for brains. It's highly unlikely you would get an animal with our kind of intelligence that was not a social animal.

That is a very interesting concept. I'm not sure I disagree with that statement on the surface. I'm just concerned about the parasitical factor devouring the host.

We are not tough any more. While I agree that life is better your way, we would never make it if something required us to go back to the old ways.

For instance, say we where to have another great depression, and the nanny state could no longer issue help. Would some folks survive?

Living in rural Appalachia, I hear a small group of people talk about the last depression. Yes they are old, but they talk about a time where they where so poor, they did not even see a difference in their quality of life when the economy crashed. It was a time when they froze if they did not chop enough wood or starved if they did not put away enough food from their garden. Meat was a luxuary.

I'm not so sure this generation has even eaten beans and cornbread much less know how to make this dish. How many people have even dug up a potato out of a garden?

 

[Father Heathen]

I've eaten my fair share of beans and cornbread. Trust me.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I've eaten my fair share of beans and cornbread. Trust me.

Yes, and you could most likely survive in this world without help. It is not just having the skills to survive, it is the mindset.

Just living through a natural disaster would be more than some folks could take.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, and you could most likely survive in this world without help. It is not just having the skills to survive, it is the mindset.

Just living through a natural disaster would be more than some folks could take.

I invite the coming of a distopic, post-apocalyptic world - sounds like a wacky, fun-filled adventure to me.

 

[Magic Man]

We are not tough any more. While I agree that life is better your way, we would never make it if something required us to go back to the old ways.

What are these "old ways"?

For instance, say we where to have another great depression, and the nanny state could no longer issue help.

What is this nanny state you're referring to? It's obviously not our government, so I'm curious what it actually is.

Would some folks survive?

Weird way of wording it. Some might not, but they would be a small minority. The vast majority would survive.

I'm not so sure this generation has even eaten beans and cornbread much less know how to make this dish. How many people have even dug up a potato out of a garden?

How many people have done it, or how many people could do it? I think the question is the latter.

I think you're confusing things here. Whether or not people have had to go through times as tough as some older generations in some ways, they are still capable of doing so. I think you're giving humans way too little credit here.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I invite the coming of a distopic, post-apocalyptic world - sounds like a wacky, fun-filled adventure to me.

Ah yes, to me, it would just be another interesting chapter of my life. The TV show survivor comes to mind. I'm serious, I was at the lake a month ago and lightning struck our local cell tower. We did not have service for about 36 hours. Many people where devastated.

 

[Magic Man]

Ah yes, to me, it would just be another interesting chapter of my life. The TV show survivor comes to mind. I'm serious, I was at the lake a month ago and lightning struck our local cell tower. We did not have service for about 36 hours. Many people where devastated.

I highly doubt many people were devastated. I'm sure many people were inconvenienced, but I'm also sure you're blowing their reactions out of proportion to try to support your point. Some people are annoyingly addicted to modern technology as you claim, but not the majority. Most of us like it and use it a lot, but, if it was taken away, we might be a little annoyed but we'd move on. I'm sure that pops your little bubble of feeling better than everyone, and for that I'm sorry.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What are these "old ways"?

Being self sufficient without electricity, phone, or other modern conveniences.

What is this nanny state you're referring to? It's obviously not our government, so I'm curious what it actually is.

Weird way of wording it. Some might not, but they would be a small minority. The vast majority would survive.

If you gave some folks a bag of rice, beans and flour, they would not even know what to do with them. :sorry1:

How many people have done it, or how many people could do it? I think the question is the latter.

Physically, yes. Mentally, I'm not so sure.

I think you're confusing things here. Whether or not people have had to go through times as tough as some older generations in some ways, they are still capable of doing so. I think you're giving humans way too little credit here.

Perhaps. Living in Florida, over half of the folks did not even keep a flashlight or candles much less a few cans of food in the house.

 

[Kathryn]

I haven't read through all the responses on this thread, so I may be repeating something someone else has said. If so, I apologize.

Both the Republican and Democrat parties are responsible for the economic mess that we're in today. Neither is in a position to cast stones because both parties can be proven to be chock full of power hungry hypocrites. We could post definitive and conclusive examples of such people all day long and prove nothing more than what should already be apparent - that most political parties and politicians are corrupt, power hungry, and self serving. They do not intend to "represent their constituents." They represent themselves and their own interests, even while they shake your hand and kiss your baby.

It is not within the nature of a government system or politicians to voluntarily limit governmental power. Politicians have to justify their positions - and the way they justify them is that they pass legislation. Eventually any system of government cannibalizes itself in a morass of ever-expanding laws and programs.

Both parties are corrupt beyond redemption. I say it's time for a major overhaul independent of the major parties. I have absolutely zero faith in 95% of our current politicians on either side of the fence.

 

[Magic Man]

Being self sufficient without electricity, phone, or other modern conveniences.

Why would people live their daily life like that? We have the modern conveniences, so we use them. That doesn't mean we wouldn't know what to do without them.

Wait a minute. You weren't being so dishonest as to refer to our government as a nanny state, were you?

If you gave some folks a bag of rice, beans and flour, they would not even know what to do with them. :sorry1:

You should probably read the comments before responding. I agreed that some wouldn't. However, that's a small "some". Most would know what to do. I'm just not sure why you're so concerned with this tiny minority.

Physically, yes. Mentally, I'm not so sure.

How do you mentally dig up a potato?

Perhaps. Living in Florida, over half of the folks did not even keep a flashlight or candles much less a few cans of food in the house.

So, just because people don't plan for an apocalypse means they can't hack it if they have to survive for a while without electricity? That seems like a bit of a jump.

 

[Troublemane]

The OP cites an article which asserts that the Bush tax cuts, if extended, will raise the deficit by $2 trillion. What the article fails to point out is that if the insane spending of the Obama administration and democratic controlled congress had not already pushed the national debt beyond $13 trillion, and a deficit of over $1 trillion THIS YEAR ALREADY, then extending the cuts would not have any effect whatsoever.

The problem is not the Bush tax cuts, the problem is that Dems have been spending the country into oblivion and they need someone to blame, so they pick BUSH! LoL!!!

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

I wonder why we ever bothered to put the democrats into power in the first place? I mean, even with a majority they complain constantly how bad things are, how they cant seem to get anything they really want done, so they have to compromise, etc. And as the economy continues to get worse and worse with every move they make, they continue to blame one guy, who isnt even around any more. Its really quite sad.

 

[Engyo]

I wonder why we ever bothered to put the democrats into power in the first place?

People were sick and tired of the way Bush and the Republicans were running things. Now they are sick and tired of the way Obama and the Democrats are running things.

Our political system fits one definition of insanity: keep doing the same things over and over and yet expecting different results.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, the wars have cost Americans one trillion and counting... and none of these countries were even a threat.

As I recall, Democrats also voted to start these wars.

Republican economic theory all but completely destroyed the US economy.

I agree. The Republicans should have never aped the Democrats ruinous economic theory.

It simply isn't possible for Obama to do worse, because there's nothing left.

You misunderestimate Obama....there's plenty of damage yet to do.

Now in their perverse bloodlust Republicans will send us to war with Iran and North Korea, which will finalize the destruction of the US as we know it.

Given that it's the prez who wages war, if Obama attacks another country, then how is it the Republicans' fault? I don't like those guys either,
but jumpin jiminey, man....Obama & his cronies must shoulder some of the blame if a Democratic Congress declares war.

 

[Kathryn]

The OP cites an article which asserts that the Bush tax cuts, if extended, will raise the deficit by $2 trillion.

Yeah, I just love how Obama has stated repeatedly that he won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 (though he sometimes said $200,000 and Biden actually said $150,000 at one point) - but all the while his plan was to allow the tax cuts to expire, which in effect raises taxes on nearly EVERYONE.

His entire budget hinged from the start on allowing those tax cuts to expire.

Legalese - his forte. AKA - "How to lie like a dog while technically telling the truth." The specialty of teenagers, attorneys, and politicians.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree. The Republicans should have never aped the Democrats ruinous economic theory.

It seemed to me that the economy was doing just fine when Bush took office. It seems to me by the time he left, it was in the crapper. It also seems to me that the federal dept under Clinton went from $4.35 trillion in 1994 to $5.77 trillion in 2001, while under W it went from $5.77 trillion in 2001 to $8.95 trillion in 2007. In other words, under Clinton the debt went up 32.6% over two terms. Under W it went up more than 55.1%.

So, I'd be very curious to see what could have made you make a statement like this.

 

[Magic Man]

but all the while his plan was to allow the tax cuts to expire, which in effect raises taxes on nearly EVERYONE.

How does that raise taxes on everyone?

 

[Engyo]

Yeah, I just love how Obama has stated repeatedly that he won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 (though he sometimes said $200,000 and Biden actually said $150,000 at one point) - but all the while his plan was to allow the tax cuts to expire, which in effect raises taxes on nearly EVERYONE.

His entire budget hinged from the start on allowing those tax cuts to expire.

Legalese - his forte. AKA - "How to lie like a dog while technically telling the truth." The specialty of teenagers, attorneys, and politicians.

My understanding is that the Obama administration plan was originally to extend the tax cuts on all but the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers.....but that is a much less inflammatory talking point for generating fear among voters.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seemed to me that the economy was doing just fine when Bush took office.

9/11 was the beginning of the decline. When the towers fell, I saw venture capital funding dry up, commercial rents decline, vacancy rates go up, & businesses stop expanding. But this was not a matter of economic policy. It was the response which further worsened things, eg, 2 wars, massive increases in deficit spending (a traditionally Democratic trait). For those interested in pinning responsibility for 9/11 on Bush, I see the problem as crossing party lines going back decades.

It seems to me by the time he left, it was in the crapper.

See above. Moreover, the housing bubble also has roots in prior decades. Fannie's & Freddie's instabilities had decades of bi-partisan support, as Republicans embraced the Democratic agenda of highly subsidized home loans.

It also seems to me that the federal dept under Clinton went from $4.35 trillion in 1994 to $5.77 trillion in 2001, while under W it went from $5.77 trillion in 2001 to $8.95 trillion in 2007. In other words, under Clinton the debt went up 32.6% over two terms. Under W it went up more than 55.1%.

There is far more to the matter than the party of just the prez. Under Clinton, we had Newt's Contract With America. Let's also not forget my premise, ie, that Bush behaves like a Democrat regarding spending & taxation, with both increasing.

So, I'd be very curious to see what could have made you make a statement like this.

See above.

 

[Magic Man]

9/11 was the beginning of the decline. When the towers fell, I saw venture capital funding dry up, commercial rents decline, vacancy rates go up, & businesses stop expanding. But this was not a matter of economic policy. It was the response which further worsened things, eg, 2 wars, massive increases in deficit spending (a traditionally Democratic trait).

See above.

Regardless of what happened, the economy still went into the crapper, and our economic mess right now isn't due to 9/11.

There is far more to the matter than the party of just the prez. Under Clinton, we had Newt's Contract With America. Let's also not forget my premise, ie, that Bush behaves like a Democrat regarding spending & taxation, with both increasing.

See above.

So, then, by your thinking Clinton behaves like a republican regarding spending and taxation? You can't have it both ways. W was a republican. He acted like a republican, and we see what happened. You claimed he followed democratic economic theories and that's what caused problems. That's untrue.

 

[Duck]

Shadow, I didnt say it was a reason. an accurate prediction, is an action that happens, until it happens the prediction is recognised as accurate. I referred to Nostradamus as a well recognised person that predicted, if you know something else about 911 not being his prediction well, I havent heard it, but I wouldnt be surprised. The predictions in the bible, will be an action that happens, and it predicts about a horrible lengthy war, and our actions sound about right. (along those lines)

I didnt say everyone was christian, I said it was based on it. have you ever been their? their is a lot of writing about God, some have recently been removed, look at the dollar, you should investigate what it says under the dome, well, many laws were placed, resembling bible scripture.
and that is all I will say about that, I know what I know and you know what you know.
and we can agree to dissagree
may you find yourself in a blessed position

So, the HUNDRED Years war doesn't fulfill this "horrible lengthy war" in anyway? The problem with trying to fit any kind of prophecy to modern events is that the language used by prophets is quite murky, full of metaphor, poetic imagery and ambiguity.

As far as biblically based laws enacted in the US, they all need to be repealed. Or we need to start enacting laws based on the Wiccan Rede, Elder Eddas, Bhagavad Sita, Guru Granth Sahib, Tao Te Ching, and every other holy book written, many of which would be in direct conflict with each other, not to mention the holy texts of the christian tradition.