HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » There's No Such Thing as ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:56 PM

There's No Such Thing as a 'Reagan' Democrat...

WARNING: IF YOU DON'T LIKE CURSING, STOP READING NOW.


There's no such thing as a 'Reagan Democrat'.

They're fucking Republicans, and they're polluting the fuck out of this website.

Entitlement Reform?

Raise the age requirement for Medicare?

Guess what, dick-heads...

No sack of shit, right-wing prick is entitled to, nor deserving of, Chinese labor - nor labor from any other fucking country overseas.

No trade reform = no entitlement reform.

PERIOD.

America's domestic welfare programs and our foreign trade policy are inextricably linked and I, for one, I'm fed up with pretending that they are not.

Between union-busting and cheap imports, all that's left for the American worker are low-wage table scraps, pink slips and food stamps.

To hell with you fake pieces-of-shit.

ENOUGH!

159 replies, 13679 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 159 replies Author Time Post
Reply There's No Such Thing as a 'Reagan' Democrat... (Original post)
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 OP
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #1
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #2
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #3
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #4
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #5
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #7
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #10
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #17
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #15
FarCenter Dec 2012 #38
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #40
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #13
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #142
dballance Dec 2012 #28
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #71
Ed Suspicious Dec 2012 #94
JoeyT Dec 2012 #129
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #6
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #9
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #16
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #19
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #34
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #41
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #50
Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #66
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #73
ancianita Dec 2012 #92
Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #153
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #90
aquart Dec 2012 #98
gtar100 Dec 2012 #143
Iggo Dec 2012 #20
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #22
Iggo Dec 2012 #25
gollygee Dec 2012 #35
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #62
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #74
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #106
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #112
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #8
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #11
loyalsister Dec 2012 #146
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #12
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #14
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #23
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #24
Romulox Dec 2012 #120
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #137
Romulox Dec 2012 #138
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #18
Zorra Dec 2012 #21
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #31
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #33
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #37
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #43
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #69
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #78
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #97
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #115
Zorra Dec 2012 #55
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #63
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #81
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #89
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #99
Zorra Dec 2012 #111
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #113
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #80
Historic NY Dec 2012 #26
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #29
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #32
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #36
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #39
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #88
OmahaBlueDog Dec 2012 #48
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #59
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #95
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #96
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #101
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #114
OmahaBlueDog Dec 2012 #151
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #75
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #82
Turbineguy Dec 2012 #27
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #30
Skittles Dec 2012 #42
fascisthunter Dec 2012 #44
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #47
fascisthunter Dec 2012 #51
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #45
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #46
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #61
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #64
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #72
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #84
Skittles Dec 2012 #49
HughBeaumont Dec 2012 #147
Skittles Dec 2012 #148
OmahaBlueDog Dec 2012 #52
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #65
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #70
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #77
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #108
Historic NY Dec 2012 #57
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #67
Romulox Dec 2012 #155
FarCenter Dec 2012 #53
Romulox Dec 2012 #156
NeeDeep Dec 2012 #54
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #68
freshwest Dec 2012 #56
alittlelark Dec 2012 #58
Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #60
dangin Dec 2012 #76
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #87
ReRe Dec 2012 #79
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #85
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #83
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #86
Jamaal510 Dec 2012 #91
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #103
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #93
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #100
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #102
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #104
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #107
Romulox Dec 2012 #126
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #139
Romulox Dec 2012 #154
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #158
Romulox Dec 2012 #159
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #105
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #109
leftstreet Dec 2012 #110
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #117
JVS Dec 2012 #116
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #118
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #119
Romulox Dec 2012 #121
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #122
Romulox Dec 2012 #123
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #125
Romulox Dec 2012 #127
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #130
Romulox Dec 2012 #132
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #135
billh58 Dec 2012 #144
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #149
billh58 Dec 2012 #150
Romulox Dec 2012 #157
Romulox Dec 2012 #124
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #131
Romulox Dec 2012 #133
OneAngryDemocrat Dec 2012 #134
katsy Dec 2012 #128
Tippy Dec 2012 #136
99Forever Dec 2012 #140
ancianita Dec 2012 #141
Drifter Dec 2012 #145
johnlucas Dec 2012 #152

Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:00 PM

1. You will just have to remain angry and scream at the clouds. No reasonable, rational country is


is going to restrict international trade.

The thought of doing so is so out of mainstream thinking that DU should create a fourm to throw all that garbage in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:01 PM

2. You used the word 'reasonable'...

And you can NOT justify as to why you did.

Our trade policies are NOT reasonable.

The fellow who got pink slipped didn't get a damn thing in return for government interference in the US market (via a trade treaty the pink slipped fellow never lobbied for) EXCEPT for a welfare program that the so-called 'Reagan' Democrats want to dismantle.

So you can go soak your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:03 PM

3. Of course I can. Only countries who are not reasonable and responsible


isolate themselves from economic engagement with the rest of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:05 PM

4. Evidence?

Proof is in the pudding, bud.

Last time I checked, we have a lop-sided trade imbalance, and that's not ending any God-damn time.

What is "reasonable" or "responsible" about THAT?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:06 PM

5. Actually, you are too far on the fringe to worry about.


I'll just laugh instead.

Let us know how your rage against international trade works out for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:09 PM

7. You Lose this Round...

Your original post - before you edited it - claimed N Korea as 'evidence' that self-imposed trade isolation hurts national economies.

But North Korean trade isn't isolated by their choice.

They'd love to sell you their SLAVE-MADE goods.

Feel free to try again, though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:11 PM

10. Like I said let me know how screaming to stop the future works out for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:19 PM

17. Let me know when you can stop editing your posts when I tear your arguments to shreds...



North Korea isolated themselves from world trade? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:17 PM

15. As always he has nothing, so in typical authoritarian form, he declares victory and walks away.

 

"It's not what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know for sure that ain't true.” - Mark Twain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:17 PM

38. North Korea, Albania and Myanmar are examples of self-imposed economic isolation

The North Koran concept of Juche includes charip as a principle of economic self-sufficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:22 PM

40. I Don't like Dishonesty...

Whether or not a North Korean wants to hold your hand has ZERO relevance on whether or not the global community has chosen to blockade the country.

Try this test: See if you can get a North Korean to buy GPS equipment from you, and see who it is that actually stops the transaction.

Come to the table with valid arguments, or don't bother to step into the mix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:13 PM

13. Laugh all you want...

Laugh all you want...

I'll repost the question I posed to you so as to emphasize your inability to properly respond:

We have a lop-sided trade imbalance, and that's not ending any God-damn time.

What is "reasonable" or "responsible" (as policy) about THAT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:24 PM

142. The reasonable policy "about that"

has several components.

First, we require anyone trading with us to allow labor unions, and import only union-made stuff.

Second, beyond the unions, we require anyone trading with us to impose and enforce humane conditions in the workplace. That means a 40-hour work week, no child labor, retirement benefits, a living wage by local standards, etc. We put this stuff in right away & don't wait 2 generations for the labor unions to negotiate it all for themselves.

Third, we import only from countries that have good environmental laws, at least as good as our own.

By doing all these things, we level the playing field and reduce the competitive advantages of super-low labor costs and environmental trashing.

This would mean that a whole lot of treaties would have to be re-written, but hey, dipple-macs need work too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:55 PM

28. So that's why despite the fact the US does not acknowledge it

China has manipulated its currency for so long. And the effect of the "free trade" agreements seems to have been large US corporations like Walmart are "free" to "trade" good-paying jobs in the US for slave labor in places like Bangladesh?

They and the US are just engaging in with the rest of the world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:02 PM

71. Only countries who are not reasonable allow Foreign Corporations to write their Trade Laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:42 PM

94. It's the evangelical belief and espousment of the godlike invisible hand crap.

Nothing free market can be wrong and nothing protectionist can be right to these people. Bullshit. Balance is the key. Fair trade not free trade!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:32 AM

129. I don't exploit sweatshop labor with you.

I hate to break it to you, but over half the country opposes free trade.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39407846/53_in_US_Say_Free_Trade_Hurts_Nation_NBCWSJ_Poll

53% of general populace oppose, 65% of union members oppose. We have a forum for that "garbage". It's called General Discussion. Perhaps someone can suggest a "Let's Exploit the Poor While Patting Ourselves on the Back" forum for the pro-free traders? Or if that's too long they could just call it "Ron Paul: Fuck Yeah".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:07 PM

6. Entitlement reform can mean a more efficient distribution of aid to the people who need it...

 

An unwillingness to even examine it is blindness.

There should be a constant process of reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:10 PM

9. Could... BUT WON'T.

I don't like dishonest people.

More efficient distribution isn't what the DOGS want. They want ELIMINATION of the programs on principle.

You know it - I know it.

Discuss the subject honestly, or don't bother chiming in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:19 PM

16. I'm sure a tantrum is a much better solution...

 

There are likely programs out there that are not an efficient use of funds and those monies could be put towards a better use. Why not find out what they are and get the most bang for our collective buck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:22 PM

19. There's No Way to Correct A Problem Until It is Accepted That One Exists.

And that's a God-damned no-brainer.

I identified THE problem: America's domestic welfare programs and our foreign trade policy are inextricably linked.

Between union-busting and cheap imports, all that's left for the American worker are low-wage table scraps, pink slips and food stamps.

Not a single right-wing fuck responding has even fucking BOTHERED to say why I might be wrong, or what to do about it if I am correct.

They just keep on whistling with their hands in the pockets and pretending like there's nothing fucking happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #16)


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:22 PM

41. Who cares about what they want?

 

Let's talk about something that could accomplish something instead of hissy fits and clinging desperately to a system that isn't optimal.

Legitimate and honest reform could sway moderate voters who think the system is broken and is nothing but subsidized handouts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:37 PM

50. Deleting posts when you can't support an assertion does not a debate make...

Again, I don't like dishonest people, Bulb.

I deleted my response to you, since, in light of your decision to delete your own, mine looked kind of silly just hanging out there without any context.

More efficient distribution of welfare isn't what the DOGS want. Better 'bang for the buck' isn't want they want, either.

Legitimate and honest welfare reform is the last thing they - and most likely your dishonest self - desire.

They - and you in most likelihood - want the total ELIMINATION of welfare on principle.

You know it - I know it. Everyone here knows it.

Discuss the subject honestly, or don't bother chiming in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:55 PM

66. Umm... I didn't delete anything...

 

I think it's time to set down either the computer or the booze you referenced down thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:03 PM

73. Bullshit.

Liars don't win debates.

They can win elections, popularity contests, et cetera - but not debates.

1+1 will never, ever = 3, even if you can convince your audience that it can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #41)


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:11 AM

153. Subsidized handouts? So you agree with Grover Norquist

and the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:32 PM

90. What problem does SS have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:58 PM

98. Like Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Food stamps?

What's the better use you have in mind? Be specific or be Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:24 PM

143. Like the military program. Highly inefficient.

And excessive and unnecessary subsidies to large agricultural businesses and the oil industry. That's just to name a few government programs we could focus on cutting back and eliminating waste. If only everything really was on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:24 PM

20. Dude.

Mellow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:29 PM

22. We Don't Have Legalized Pot in Illinois.

And I'm an angry drunk.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:40 PM

25. LOL.



Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:12 PM

35. I really think "reform" is Republican double-speak

for "slash."

I don't think anyone at all is suggesting actual reform, least of all the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:51 PM

62. Orrin Hatch Is The Fucking MASTER Of The Double-Speak

 

Anything that nasty slimy shit weasel in $600 shirts and $1000 cuff links says is 180 degrees the opposite. They don't want to reform jack shit, they want the whole shebang GONE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:03 PM

74. What do you mean by 'reform'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lightbulb_on (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:34 AM

106. That's a repuke lie.

Government programs are extremely efficient. Medicare, for instance, has a 3% overhead, while private insurance companies take about 30% of every dollar. The "blindness" here is you accepting "efficiency" is not a hallmark of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #106)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:29 AM

112. BULWORTH!Nailed That Point.

 

Holy fracking shit is that a great movie or what? But back to your point, the "free market" gurus are con men, flim flam artists, hucksters, and general A-Holes. To a point I made up thread, think Orrin Hatch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:09 PM

8. Agreed. I've always maintained that the republican Democrat labels are meaningless.

 

We are authoritarians and egalitarians. Everything else is a diversion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:11 PM

11. I beg to differ.

 

The national party is basically the party of Reagan now. That we have the only sane people in congress matters very little since they have no power. The Republicans are now the Bircher party and the Democrats are the Reagan party. Gone is the pro-union, pro-worker FDR/LBJ style Democratic party that brought about Social Security and Medicare, that valued education and welcomed the hatred of the bankers. Gone and apparently never coming back in spite of the rhetoric that says otherwise.

Watch how we get fucked in the coming "deal". The rich and the corporations won't give up anything more than a token hike in taxes they don't pay anyway and in the spirit of "shared sacrifice" eligibility ages will go up and benefits will be cut.

It's all too predictable. We "won" the election but as usual we really didn't.

The more things change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:27 PM

146. I agree

The gen xers (ie Paul Ryan and co.) who are gaining influence grew up under Reaganomics. A lot of them are following their parents ideological inclinations. They may have some liberal leanings on social issues, but when it comes to economics greed is good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:12 PM

12. There are plenty of free-trade Democrats

 

Paul Krugman is even free-trade. See:

The point is that free trade is politically viable only if it's backed by effective job creation measures and a strong domestic social safety net. And that suggests that free traders should be more worried by the prospect that the policies of the current administration will continue than by the possibility of a Democratic replacement.

Put it this way: there's a reason why the two U.S. presidents who did the most to promote growth in world trade were Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, while the two most protectionist presidents of the last 70 years have been Ronald Reagan and, yes, George W. Bush.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/opinion/the-trade-tightrope.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:17 PM

14. No... There Isn't.

There are democrats who subscribe to FAIR trade (and that would include Krugman, ref: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/bad-free-trade-arguments/.) - but there's not a single God damn democrat that advocates 'free trade' and can still claim to be a democrat.

Free trade advocates are not democrats - they're fucking Republicans calling themselves democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:32 PM

23. Krugman is quite clear - calling free trade a "sacred tenet

 

"If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."


http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1942985?uid=3739616&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101422889333

But that is OK. Fair trade is close enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:36 PM

24. Fair Trade is Moral Free Trade

Krugman knows and has written about the difference.

KRUGMAN:

"...it’s no longer safe to assert, as we could a dozen years ago, that the effects of trade on income distribution in wealthy countries are fairly minor. There’s now a good case that they are quite big, and getting bigger.

This doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing protectionism. It does mean that free-traders need better answers to the anxieties of those who are likely to end up on the losing side from globalisation."


http://www.voxeu.org/article/trade-and-inequality-revisited


The man was not speaking as a free-trader - he was asking them the same moral questions that I am.

Free trade can not be morally justified, here or abroad, by anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:15 AM

120. The President passed "Free Trade" with Korea his first term. Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:55 AM

137. It's the entitlement 'reform' that matters...

Those who got pink-slipped by those taking advantage of the 40+ trade treaties we've entered into as a nation, are OWED something.

What that is, exactly, we can debate.

Who should pay that debt, exactly, is something we can debate, as well.

But they ARE owed.

No American is 'entitled' to, nor deserving of, a job. But the free-traders are not 'entitled' to, nor deserving of, cheap, overseas labor, either.

If the free-traders got their cheap labor, courtesy of a government representing their interests, then it is only MORAL and RIGHTEOUS to ensure that those who got shafted are compensated for their loss.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #137)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:02 AM

138. OK, but quit telling me that the guys who signed these deals aren't "really" Democrats.

NAFTA was BILL CLINTON.
Complete failure to live up to his promise to renegotiate NAFTA was BARACK OBAMA
"Free Trade" with Korea with BARACK OBAMA
Currently negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in secret is BARACK OBAMA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:21 PM

18. I agree. Such people are republicans. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:25 PM

21. Recommend! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:59 PM

31. Silly people argue against free trade

Also, the reason we're a net importer is the fact our economy is one of the most prosperous and the wealthiest in the world and our consumers can afford to purchase the products manufactured and imported from overseas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:06 PM

33. Shit-Heads Argue FOR Free Trade

Prosperous for whom is the question, Oasis.

Arguing that the American millionaire getting rich off of Chinese labor has made the folks he pink-slipped and forced on to welfare 'prosperous' is - to be blunt - INSANE.

A family on welfare isn't prospering, even if they can purchase foreign-made goods with that welfare check.

They're existing.

And part of this conversation is whether or not those 'entitlements' allowing that family to exist should continue or not.

Too many 'democrats' are, in fact, putting those welfare 'entitlements' on the chopping block - a fact you're politely ignoring with your assenine comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:15 PM

37. For everyone involved

Prosperity, that is.

Before I debate your points, I have to ask what are you in favor of? Protectionism that may temporarily favor certain industries (while usually harming others). Blanket protectionism under the banner of so-called "fair trade".

If we could establish what type of trade practices you're advocating, I could respond and argue the point.

Oasis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:28 PM

43. Crap Response, Oasis...

Trade - by it's very name - is supposed to be a two-way street.

That's not what we have - nor is it anything that you've even tried to pretend that you want.

The continous trade imbalance we have with most of the 'developing world' would seem to demostrate a one-way arrangement, or pretty damn close to it. Money flows out of the country, and what little comes back isn't being 'trickled down' to anyone.

Trade, today, is nothing more than a euphemism for legal slavery.

All that's changed since the 1850's is how far away the slaves' quarters are behind the Manor house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:57 PM

69. My question remains

What type of trade policy would you advocate? Explain, if you would, if you're asking for protectionism, what degrees and is it blanket?

That's really all I'm asking so I can then consider your responses and go from there.

You've equated our current policy to a form of slavery. It's not convincing in the least, but obviously that's your opinion. How would you remedy it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:11 PM

78. You're not following the thread too closely...

Elsewhere I have made it abundantly clear that FAIR trade is acceptable.

Trade must be just and equitable, because, if it is not, then we're not talking about trade.

We'd then be talking about highway robbery, crony capitalism, vulture capitalism, theft by decepetion, et cetera.

An honest day's wage for an honest day's work used to mean something. Today, that's what suckers pay to their employees, and employees seldom ever see.

What constitutes an honest day's wage for an honest day's work isn't unilaterally determined by the employer, either.

Nor is it decided by the consumer.

It is determined by the emplyee and employer in consultation with one another, with, perhaps, the consumer's needs being taken into consideration.

Anything else - like the communist regime in Red China, or the caste system in India, or the failed narco-state in Mexico - is tryanny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:55 PM

97. Ok

You're employing all of these platitudes and nebulous terms attempting to define something that's pretty clear and straight forward. I'll address your post line, by line, I suppose.

Trade must be just and equitable, because, if it is not, then we're not talking about trade.


Then what are we talking about? You've already referenced slavery. Who determines if it's "just and equitable"? Me? You? A third party? It's fair and just if both parties agree with the value received and returned. On the macro level the principle remains the same.

An honest day's wage for an honest day's work used to mean something. Today, that's what suckers pay to their employees, and employees seldom ever see.

What constitutes an honest day's wage for an honest day's work isn't unilaterally determined by the employer, either.


What did it mean back in your golden age of the employee/employer relationship? People who worked hard could afford to buy a car and a home? Wait they can do that now in most cases and multiple cars to boot! Along with lots of other cool stuff to stock the home with. If my boss is a real jerk and wants to keep paying me under market wages that I legitimately feel don't match my skills and contributions then I have the option of looking elsewhere and getting compensated my true value. If I don't choose that avenue I can try and convince him otherwise. No one, however, is restricting your movement. You have the option of attempting to organize your workplace if you wish to stay.

The original point remains. You have options.

Nor is it decided by the consumer.

It is determined by the emplyee and employer in consultation with one another, with, perhaps, the consumer's needs being taken into consideration.


Perhaps? The boss is passing on your cost as an employee onto the consumer in the form of prices for the product or service he sells. The consumers "needs" are of critical importance or you'll find there won't be a consumer to do business with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #97)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:02 AM

115. And I'll Respond...

And I'll respond with all the lines of text you intentionally omitted.

Dishonesty is for immoral fucks, Oasis - not patriotic Americans.

You may not have liked my answers - but if you're going to God-damn debate them, you can't pretend I didn't give 'em.

Me: Trade must be just and equitable, because, if it is not, then we're not talking about trade.

You: Then what are we talking about? You've already referenced slavery.

Me (with response you intentionally ignored): We'd then be talking about highway robbery, crony capitalism, vulture capitalism, theft by decepetion, et cetera.

You: Who determines if it's "just and equitable"? Me? You? A third party?

Me (with response you intentionally ignored): An honest day's wage for an honest day's work used to mean something. Today, that's what suckers pay to their employees, and employees seldom ever see.

What constitutes an honest day's wage for an honest day's work isn't unilaterally determined by the employer, either.

Nor is it decided by the consumer.

It is determined by the emplyee and employer in consultation with one another, with, perhaps, the consumer's needs being taken into consideration.


The consumer will always be there, Oasis - but it ain't my job to make sure they get the best buy by letting US producers lower their bottom line on the necks of my American neighbors with a tax break.

It is the service provider or producer's job to ensure the consumer's confidence in the provider's service or producer's good.

AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

Everyone on the planet is a 'consumer' - all 6 billion of us, Oasis.

There is, however, only 300 million Americans, and apparently you see no difference between any of them and your US neighbors.

I guess not everyone can be a patriot, I s'pose.

But I can't shed my love of country as quickly as others.

My neighbors aren't merely future customers.

They're my fellow AMERICANS.

Now that I've made my position clear, perhaps you might want to respond to what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:43 PM

55. You call human beings consumers? That is so very sad.

You appear to have a very narrow understanding of globalization and laissez faire capitalism, particularly about the enormous misery and destruction it causes to millions upon millions of people. Then again, you may not care about this as long as you have a nice TV and a new car. Hopefully, the essay below will expand your understanding an of the subject a bit. I highly recommend that you read the entire piece.

There many, many things in life that are more important than money and things to a lot of human beings on this planet. I am one of these people.

The Seven Loose Pieces of the Global Jigsaw Puzzle
(Neoliberalism as a puzzle: the useless global unity which fragments and destroys nations)

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. he great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict ates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:52 PM

63. I have a pretty good understanding, thank you

Also, you vehemently object to my use of the term "consumers"? Perhaps you have an alternate to CPI?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:16 PM

81. No Oasis... I don't Think You do...

I'm pretty certain you probably think that a f'ing tax rebate for the ''job creators'' somehow grows the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:30 PM

89. I think most progressive dems object to corporate language. We tend to view people

as people, not commodities to be profited from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:06 AM

99. Is the term "consumer"

now referred to as "corporate language"? How can anyone assert with straight face that referring to those who consume as "consumers" is somehow dehumanizing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #99)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:20 AM

111. Apparently you are not aware that it is actually highly offensive to many progressives.

Probably almost all progressives in fact.

Should We Stop Referring to People as ‘Consumers’?
http://business.time.com/2012/04/18/should-we-stop-referring-to-people-as-consumers/
The term “consumers” is routinely used in place of “people” and “citizens.” While most people (consumers?) don’t notice or care much about the terms being used interchangeably, there are those who resent being labeled as “consumers,” as if their sole purpose and reason for existence on this planet is to consume—to eat, drink, use, watch, and buy stuff, and keep the economy humming along. Now, a new psychological study indicates that it may be in everyone’s interest if we stop referring to (insulting?) folks as mere consumers.

A team of researchers led by Galen Bodenhausen, a professor of psychology and marketing at Northwestern University, has published the results of a new study about materialism and happiness in the journal Psychological Science. Among the familiar findings—money can’t buy happiness, and material possessions don’t make us happy either—is one concerning the use of the word “consumer.”

Along with economists, politicians, business reporters and advocacy groups, we habitually describe our fellow humans as consumers. Of course, that term makes sense when applied to people wolfing down food and drink, but lately it has been extended to virtually every area of our lives. Nowadays we do not just consume hot dogs and Cokes; we consume services and environmental resources and media and durable goods and everything else imaginable, all with greedy gusto and a seemingly bottomless appetite.

Until recently, just about everyone accepted this insidious new moniker, perhaps not even noticing when the term consumer began to push aside references to ourselves as citizens or simply men and women.


Amazing how silly we progressives are, isn't it?

I even had a straight face the whole time I was writing this post.

Anyone else hate the word "consumer"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2387584

When did we become consumers instead of citizens?
Around the time corporations got citizen status, I would guess.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2052926

Consumer Confidence, anyone else hate that bs term?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5151295

I'm not a "Consumer" I'm a Citizen!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6569048

The Origin of Business Words

Consumer.
The Latin term consumo means "eat up completely", which understandably led to our current use of the term consumer.

"Money is not speech, and corporations are not people"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #111)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:36 AM

113. BAM! Thank You! So Glad You Kept A Straight Face Zorra

 

Because you know, according to a certain poster speaking the truth to power is kind of a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:14 PM

80. Zorra "Gets" it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:46 PM

26. Reagans dead like the rest of the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:55 PM

29. That's Not What I See...

I see something quite different.

I see a DNC in 2012 that is a cloned twin of the GOP of the 1980's.

I see President Obama accepting unlimited corporate funds to finance his 2012 inauguration...

I see Charlie Crist - a Reagan Republican who has NOT changed his political positions one iota - filing papers to run against a Tea Party darling for Governor in Florida as a democrat...

I see Rahm Emanuel - Obama's former chief of staff - bending over backwards to bust the Chicago teachers' union, followed by Illinois Governor Quinn attempting to do the same to state employees and their union...

I see Democrat-Endorsed Torture...

I see Democrat-Endorsed Illegal Detention...

I see Democrat-Endorsed War...

And the conclusion I draw from these observations is that the Democratic Party continues to, inexorably, move to the right - in total lockstep with the GOP, (albeit keeping the appropriate distance as the Republican Party moves from simple fascism to pure lunacy).

Today's Democratic Party isn't your father's Democratic Party, but - arguably - it has morphed into your father's Republican Party.

I don't need a 'purity' test for my democratic candidates... but it sure would be nice to have a few fucking democrats to vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:05 PM

32. Well, in the 60s I saw Democrat Party led war.

 

I saw Democratic Senators vote against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

I saw them vote against Medicare.

Remember Will Rogers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:15 PM

36. Those 'Democrats' Weren't Setting Party Policy...

Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:22 PM

39. LBJ's war was far worse than Obama's Afghan war

 

The atrocities were far worse as well as our troop involvement.

And Obama is leaving his war soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:27 PM

88. And Liberals let him know how they felt about that war didn't they? Did he run again

No, because Progressive Dems do not support wars for profit and he knew he could not win.

So why are you going all the way back to the sixties? We are talking about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:37 PM

48. Um..yes they were

This is why, in '68, Eugene McCarthy was left on the outside looking in while Hubert Humphry eneded up participating in one of the most ideologically odd elections ever: Richard Nixon ran as the anti-war candidate, while Humphry ran on the platform of continuing the war and the policy of containment (more simply: continuing LBJs policies).

Outside the convention hall, there was rioting. But the pro-war candidate ended up on the ticket. LBJs supporters did set party policy. By '72 we'd seen the light, but by then it was too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:49 PM

59. Um... No they were NOT

BannedFromKOS's comment: I saw Democratic Senators vote against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I saw them vote against Medicare.

My comment: They weren't setting party policy.

The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act and Medicare all passed into law, OmahaBlueDog - therefore democrats who voted against the legislation weren't setting party policy.

I'm taking down all the fake Democrats single-handedly, tonight.

Fuck - have you all lost your edge after the general election, or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:47 PM

95. You can't pick and choose issues to fit your point...

This is funny. Do you even understand Democratic history outside the window of the 60s? I'm starting to think you don't. Maybe it's because you're too angry to rationally look at things, but I can remind - but overall, here are some facts:

1) FDR specifically ignored civil rights issues as a presidential candidate in the 30s because he didn't want to alienate southern, racist Democrats. Right there, you have a good portion of the Democratic Party setting party politics. Roosevelt promised to support legislation banning lynching - but backed off that promise when pushed by southern Democrats throughout the first part of his presidency. He eventually created the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department, but it was weak in combating lynching and didn't live up to its promise - really, just like FDR wanted because he knew he needed southern support.

2) JFK continually kicked the civil rights can down the road so that he wouldn't tick off southern Democrats. He moved the needle, but barely and it wasn't until LBJ, and the assassination of Kennedy, that eventually pushed through the act. Had Kennedy not been assassinated, it's entirely possible the Civil Rights Act stalls in Congress. But the sympathy and Johnson's nohow (remember, Johnson initially didn't want to push it because he didn't think it would pass - and was only prodded by MLK) got it through.

3) Vietnam. It's remarkable how easily you ignore it in your rantings. See, this goes back to my original point - you pick and choose which issues to fit your point. Okay, so the liberals were able to hold the line on social programs - but not without a huge fight and they all fell in line during the Vietnam War era.

So, a refresher course:

The Democratic Party was often soft on civil rights and was only forced into the fray during the unrest during the 1960s. Kennedy was far from being a pro-active leader because he knew he needed the southern coalition to accomplish anything. Even Johnson needed Kennedy's death and a great deal of Republican support to get civil rights passed - so, in the end, the Democratic Party you idolized still had some major flaws.

And let's not forget the original Social Security - which barred women and coal miners from receiving benefits. So, even the great programs you preach about today were flimsy, or limited, when they began. Why? Because the Democrats still were a party dominated by a huge faction of bigots who hated big government.

I love FDR as much as you - but that doesn't change the fact Roosevelt was passive on a lot of civil rights issues, put Japanese-Americans in internment camps (that's a pretty big deal) and was a huge free trader. Johnson? He lied us deeper into war, which cost thousands of Americans their lives - many more their livelihood and absolutely destroyed the Democratic Party's message for a generation. You don't think it's a coincidence that the Democratic Party began its erosion around the time LBJ left office? Americans turned on the party and that opened a huge door for Republicans to step through.

That's the Democratic Party you idolize - a party that has just as many flaws as the party today. Don't bullshit me. Don't pretend the Democratic Party of the 1930s and 40s and 60s wasn't without fault. They did some shitty things - far more shittier things, in some instances than President Obama has ever done ... and I'll say it from personal experience considering I lost my father, a Vietnam Veteran, because of Agent Orange-related problems.

That Democratic Party was pretty brutal and scummy in a lot of instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #95)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:53 PM

96. I'm Not 'IDOLIZING' Anyone...

I'm asserting that the Democratic Party has taken a hard shift to the right, to the point that, today, the DNC is no different than the GOP was, of the 1980's.

Someone took the thread off on a tangent - and I responded... but I don't need a history lesson.

I need a fucking political party to call home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #96)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:16 AM

101. The Democratic Party has moved with the American sentiments.

If you don't want to be a Democrat anymore, fine. But you also are advocating for a party that died out in 1980. Look, this is probably hard to accept, but there is a reason the Democrats failed at winning the White House in almost every election between 1968 and 1992 - a stretch of 24 years and it wasn't because they were too conservative. The party had to evolve or they were essentially going to die.

But I'll tell you this, the Democratic Party is a helluva lot more liberal today than it was when President Clinton left office in 2001. You can debate the semantics all you want - but in the end, this party has lurched the narrative leftward on almost every issue. Abortion? The Democrats didn't speak out in favor of it much in the 1990s and 00s because they knew it was a divisive issue. Clinton discussed them being safe, legal and rare and that was about the extent of it. Obama has gone to the mat for women's rights and has made it so just being pro-choice is not a bad thing anymore.

I remember in 2004, when Kerry gave the most convoluted answer he could on the abortion question and then I compare it to 2012 when Biden was asked essentially the same question and he gave a straightforward, "yeah, and so what?" kind of answer that was concise, impressive and unequivocal.

Eight years ago, Pres. Bush won reelection in part because Karl Rove added marriage amendments to ballots in a slew of swing states, including Ohio, and it was just enough to push him over the line to victory. Today? For the first time in American history, we had a president, a sitting president, who came out in support of gay marriage. They had a marriage initiative on the ballot in a few states and they didn't play a negative role at all for the Democrats.

16 years ago, Bill Clinton stood in front of Congress & the American people and happily stated that the era of Big Government was over. He pointed to welfare reform as a big reason for this. Welfare reform. A Democrat reforming welfare - a reform that was almost a mirror image of what the Republicans had been fighting for since the 1970s. Bill Clinton.

Obama might not be as strong of an advocate for social programs and big government as FDR, but I don't think anyone could ever say, with a straight face at least, that he's as strong of advocate for more limited government than Bill Clinton. Obama has made it so Americans don't hate the federal government anymore - something they did from the 70s through to the 00s. It was toxic to talk about a huge stimulus plan and healthcare reform and even raising taxes. Democrats like Mondale and Dukakis got their butts kicked in the 80s because they were considered tax and spend liberals.

Today? Most Americans say, "sure, raise taxes on the wealthy!"

No big deal.

The Democratic Party is more conservative today than it was under FDR in some sense, yes, but in others? On civil rights, on women's rights? Probably not. But the narrative is not necessarily shaped by the parties - but the people. Prior to Roosevelt winning the White House, only two Democrats held that office since Andrew Johnson's impeachment - Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson. They were not a national party - the Republicans dominated the White House. Then the Democrats came and the narrative shifted to the point where the Republicans found themselves in a similar spot as the Democrats. They were blocked from the WH for a 20-year span, and only managed to regain it with Eisenhower, who, was a moderate president. Even still, tho, Eisenhower was probably to the right of guys like Dewey and Willkie - two candidates who won their party's nomination and eventually lost to FDR and Truman.

But Eisenhower couldn't be a radical conservative. He couldn't be a Bob Taft. If he was, he would have been stomped out by the American people and the Republican Party would have died. They had to evolve. But what happened? Eisenhower was proven successful and showed the American people Republicans could lead - something they were skeptical on because the last Republican president before Eisenhower was Herbert Hoover. So, Eisenhower lays the foundation and eight years later, after the Democratic Party's name begins to become toxic, the more conservative Nixon takes over. Sure, Nixon wasn't as conservative as Reagan - but he was a helluva lot more conservative than Eisenhower. So, then you had Republicans controlling the narrative, steering it in their direction.

Eisenhower begat Nixon, who begat Reagan, who begat both Bushes.

What happened to the Democratic Party in the 70s and 80s? McGovern got his teeth kicked in. Carter, in large part because of Watergate, could only muster four years before an electoral blowout - and the same happened to Mondale and Dukakis.

From 1972 to 1988, the Democrats won the White House once (a very narrow victory) and lost it four times - all four were blowouts ... some of the worst electoral college defeats in modern American history.

Like the Republicans going into the 50s, the Democrats found themselves in the political wilderness. Is that the party you like? The one that might be extremely liberal, and I think we can all agree the party was from the 60s through to the 80s, but never holds the presidency - or one that understands what needs to change and adjusts to regain power?

Clinton and Obama might not be your ideal Democrat - but clearly they're the American people's ideal president. That's good enough for me. If you want guys like McGovern and Mondale - then go leave the Democratic Party, because you'll have about as much chance of winning the White House as they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #101)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:48 AM

114. I'm not an advocate for a different party...

I'm an advocate for giving the boot to dip-shit fakes who endorse what were previously GOP platforms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:21 PM

151. First of all - I'm not your enemy

My point was not to give a history lesson you find unnecessary. My point was to remind you that it's easy to idealize the Democrats as the party of progressive thought when, in fact, that has not always been true.

I've been called a conservadem, a DINO, a DLCer, a Third Wayer -- the funny thing is that conservatives I know peg me somewhere between Al Franken and Mao.

This I know:

I support unionized labor in the USA, and I believe that we must be self sufficient in producing necessary goods and services. if that means getting out of GATT and invoking protection, so be it. Most Americans really don't agree with that. Oh, they say they do.. but invariably, when the made-in-China product is sitting there at 1/3 the price of the Made in the USA product, which gets bought? I'm probably like most DUers -- I try to buy American when I can, but sometimes it just doesn't happen.

OTOH, NAFTA was probably a good theory that failed in execution. It made sense: send lower skill manufacturing jobs that were being lost here anyway to Mexico. Build a stronger Mexico. Bring them into the first worrld of industrial nations, and have a stable, triving democracy on our southern border tho reade with. Short term pain for long term gain. But it didn't work once people found you could produce goods even cheaper in China.

What's being done to the teachers unions by this administration will bite us in the ass down the road. Teachers unions have been stalwart supporters of the party, and what is being done by Arne Duncan in the name of the "race to the top" plays right in the hands of those in the GOP wanting to break teachers unions. I don't understand it. If teachers unions are acting badly in some key respects, let's fix those actions rather than break good unions.

GITMO, the monstrosity that Bush/Cheney built, will get kicked down the road by this administration and the next. You'l recall the administration tried to move them to a vacant facility in Illinois, only to be met with cries of "NIMBY!"The average American just wants the problem to go away..but short of shooting them, how does anyone propose to accomplish this?

Finally , i say that if you want to see zero-sum-game politics in action, look at the Republicans. In Indiana and Missouri, they chose political orthodoxy over siding with the mainstream on the issue of abortion. They lost both seats as a result. If you'd rather have Joe manchin switch parties, that's fine - he will. However, I'd rather have him call himself a Democrat, however reluctantly, and get his support when we need it on issuesl like SCOTUS appointments, even if he'll never see eye to eye with the rest of us on coal and the ecology. Is half a loaf better than none?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:04 PM

75. This is not the sixties.

'Democratic Party led war' btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:17 PM

82. Sabrina "Gets" It...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:51 PM

27. I don't know about that

Reagan convinced me to be a Democrat. This was back when he was gov. of California. He had it in for education back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:56 PM

30. Dems Have It In for Education in 2012, Too...

Ref: Rahm Emanual in his attempt to bust the Chicago Teachers' Union and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn terminating the Illinois State University employees' labor agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:25 PM

42. THANK YOU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:33 PM

47. :)

I really had nothing better to do, tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:38 PM

51. awesome... me neither

but I support you fully!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:28 PM

45. Bullshit. My mother was a Reagan Democrat.

She was unhappy with Carter and didn't like Mondale so she voted for Reagan twice.

And she wasn't alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:32 PM

46. Really?

So what were her core principles, then, that dems aren't sacrificing on the altar of compromise, today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:51 PM

61. She and my dad were pretty conservative. But both lifelong Democrats.

Devout Catholics. But my mom was pro choice.

She just didn't like Carter. She felt he had been a poor president. And 4 years later, she thought Mondale was a weak candidate. And she thought Reagan had been a good president and was the better choice in 1984.

My mom worked on the Kennedy campaign and absolutely despised Dubya. She wasn't a fan of Reagan and disagreed with his firing of the air traffic controllers. And she grew to be a huge fan of Jimmy Carter, after he left the White House.

But at the time, she voted for Reagan. She said many times he was one of the few Republicans she would vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:53 PM

64. It Was A Simple F'ing Question, Proud...

What were her core principles, then (when she voted for reagan), that Democrats are not sacrificing, today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:02 PM

72. She was pretty conservative.

And thought Carter had screwed up the economy.

In the 1990s she supported welfare reform.

In her generation, Catholics were Democrats. Most were anti-choice but my mom was not. She was more liberal than my dad but both were pretty conservative, especially when it came to economic issues. And lots of Democrats like them voted for Reagan. Hence the term Reagan Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:23 PM

84. Double-talk

The question was, what core principle did she hold then that democrats, today, have not sacrificed?

Sounds to me like your mother was what we'd call a moderate Republican, today, friend.

If that is the case - and I can't be 100% sure of this - if she would have called herself a moderate Republican TODAY, why on earth would she have called herself a democrat then, unless contemporary democrats have moved so far right that they have BECOME what we'd have called republicans, then?

I know that last sentence was a mess - but read it slow and I think my meaning can be pulled out.

The party has shifted to the right - and it is an ugly thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:37 PM

49. reagan made greed and idiocy fashionable

there was NOTHING Democratic about that phony

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:12 PM

147. Not to mention racism and worker-hatred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #147)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:16 PM

148. the man was absolutely fucking disgusting

I was 22 and shocked at how many people fell for that phony

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:41 PM

52. Was it that your mom was a big supporter of Reagan, or...

.. was she just disillusioned with Carter? Lots of people had thrown up their hands and given up on Carter by '80. His leadership style came off as inept at times, and the combination of the horrible economy, the Iranian hostages, and the perception (albeit incorrect) that the Soviets were overtaking us militarily led a lot of people to look at Reagan and John Anderson as alternatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:53 PM

65. Oh not a big fan at all. Very disillusioned with Carter.

So was my dad and he voted 3rd party in 1980.

Carter was not a very popular president. He's a great man today but the party didn't embrace him for re-election in 1980.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:59 PM

70. STILL No Response?

What were your mother's core principles that made her punch for Reagan, then, that Democrats, today, aren't sacrificing?

ANSWER: None.

There is no such fucking thing as a Reagan Democrat.

They were, then as now, Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:08 PM

77. Oh bullshit. I answered your fucking question.

It's absolutely delusional to deny there is any such thing as a Reagan Democrat. They are one reason Reagan won in 1980. And honestly I think their votes for Reagan had more to do with being disillusioned with Carter than with really liking Reagan. Then in 1984, Mondale wasn't a very strong candidate. He only won one state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:52 AM

108. Yea... You Did.

"...both were pretty conservative, especially when it came to economic issues."

Walks like a Republican, Sounds like a Republican, and VOTES for a Republican.

And you still insist she was a Democrat.

Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:45 PM

57. Its called voting Republican under the cover of some other BS....

Reagan feel good about American did what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:55 PM

67. He was an actor who was able to charm the American public.

I never fell for him but lots of Democrats did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:34 AM

155. Your mother is/was a "Republican". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:42 PM

53. "Regan Democrats" were mostly northern, Catholic, blue-collar workers who voted for Reagan

Primarily because they were social conservatives, not because of Reagan's economic policies, although the very high inflation of the Carter years also was a factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:36 AM

156. That's simply not true. "Regan Democrats" began in Oakland County, Michigan, in

large part because of the economic malaise of the Carter years, which affected manufacturing earlier and more deeply than other parts of the economy.

In many senses, Michigan has never recovered from the 1970s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:42 PM

54. We are up to our ears fixing their mess

 

Everywhere you look we are having to find a way to fix the 'deregulation' and trade/enslavement agreements business and republicans have foisted on our country. This wholesale Walmarting of America only leads to huge pay and bonuses for the CEO-class in America. This is simply reverting to a kingdom based society with a goverment as a lapdog and religion as the court jester. Where is the fucking care for people, our primary motivation, systematically being destroyed and supplanted with our need for money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeeDeep (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:55 PM

68. NeeDeep Get's "It"

Welcome aboard, friend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:48 PM

58. You've been here for 8 years... whole lotta sh*t goin' on

Some stands are curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:51 PM

60. Now tell us what you really think of Reagan Democrats.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you think that Reagan did a good job as president, if you think that what has happened to this country because of many of the policies and ideas that came out of the Reagan administration, you are not a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:05 PM

76. I'm surprised...

There are even Reagan republicans anymore. That guy could not win a primary in today's GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dangin (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:25 PM

87. Dangin "Gets" It...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:11 PM

79. Thank you, OneAngryDemocrat

K&R

I agree with you, but there's no way that I could have said it quite like you did.

Seems people don't know what they are, anymore. Some see issues in the color gray, or shades of gray. Me? I see things in black and white. I will admit, that when I was young, I didn't know what I was. I guess I sort of seen things in gray too. Black and White came with age and knowledge.

No ifs, ands or buts, I AM A DEMOCRAT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #79)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:24 PM

85. ReRe "Gets" It...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:18 PM

83. A Ray-Gun Democrat?

Like a Jewish Nazi is it? You either hate jelly beans or you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:25 PM

86. Aldo "Gets" It...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:38 PM

91. I always wondered myself...what IS a Reagan Dem?

Is that another name for a conservadem or a moderate Dem or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #91)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:23 AM

103. Wikipedia is your friend.

Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:41 PM

93. I feel the same way about "pro gun progressives"...such a specimen simply doesn't exist,

though the pretenses otherwise get laid on pretty thick in a certain sub-forum here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:08 AM

100. Probably another word for swing voters.

I think it was a term created by the press, possibly along with the Heritage Foundation and their never ending love affair with Reagan.

You never hear the term Nixon Democrat. - LOL
Yet there were many that voted for him too.

I agree Reagan was horrible. He turned me into a Democrat.
I voted for Ford in 1976
I voted for Carter in 1980
I wasn't going to vote for that crotchety old geezer



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:20 AM

102. So how did Reagan win 49 states in 1984,

if there were no people who traditionally voted Democratic but in this election voted for Reagan (aka "Reagan Democrats")?

And I am a big supporter of free trade. Fortunately, President Obama is too.

President Barack Obama signed into law free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that the administration says will support tens of thousands of American jobs.
Obama has cited the trade deals -- the biggest package in 17 years -- as a way to create or maintain U.S. jobs.


http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-21/obama-said-to-sign-deals-with-south-korea-panama-colombia-1-.html

I hope that you don't think that President Obama is a "shit-head" for favoring free trade.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #102)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:25 AM

104. Nye Bevan "Gets" It...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #104)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:35 AM

107. No.

I made an assertion... namely that there was very little difference between the DNC of today and the GOP of the 1980's.

You have said nothing to contradict that assertion, and I don't think you're going to be able to, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #104)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:25 AM

126. Did you forget to switch accounts before posting this? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #126)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:39 AM

139. Romulox "Gets" It...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #139)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:27 AM

154. Romulox doesn't forget which account he's logged in under, then make comments about himself

in the third person, though. Nye Bevan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #154)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:57 AM

158. OK, it was a satirical commentary on posts 68, 80, 82, 85, 86, and 87.

Sorry about the confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #158)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:02 AM

159. OIC!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #102)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:33 AM

105. I Most Certainly Do.

Democrats voted for the man - but a lot of them did so holding their nose.

Myself included.

The only thing worse than a corporate Democrat is a corporate Republican - but at least the corporate Republican is honest about his agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #105)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:56 AM

109. Not really. I think most Democrats enthusiastically voted for Pres. Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:12 AM

110. Obama is a Reagan Democrat

Center-right 'pragmatists' representing Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #110)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:10 AM

117. Yes He Is.

And we REAL democrats have got our work cut out for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:04 AM

116. That post should become part of the DU TOS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:04 AM

118. People should be PPRd if they agree with President Obama on free trade? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #118)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:13 AM

119. No...

No one - not you, not me - 'knows' (not for sure) what's going through the President's mind as he's negotiating these Free Trade Agreements.

That is, no one except for the President, himself.

One thing is for certain, however, and that's that a trade treaty that says that despotic regimes shouldn't treat their workers like shit, but isn't enforced, can claim the moral high-ground - but not unlike yourself, Nye, those who wrote the thing and are entrusted with enforcing it (in this age of de-regulation and 'small' government) are not really standing on on it.

It's clear: if you support free trade simply for the cheap, foreign labor, you're turning your back on your American neighbors and trading them in for a couple peices of silver - just like Judas.

Worse, you used the government to your advantage for something you neither deserved nor eaned: that same cheap foreign labor.

Even more worse: You're using that same government to screw over those same neighbors a second time when you demand, along with your cheap foreign labor, an end to government aid to those you shoved out into the cold in the first place.

This is a moral issue, Nye - quite possibly the moral issue of our times - and you're on the wrong side of the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:16 AM

121. The OP isn't dealing with reality. President Obama supports "Free Trade", for example.

The OP can try to declare that the President isn't a "real" Democrat if he likes, but it's a ridiculous argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:21 AM

122. What then, Makes the 'Free-Trader' a Democrat?

It's a reality-based question I'm sure you can tackle quite handily.

But be sure to clarify why entitlements have to be 'reformed' in your response... because my rant wasn't against free trade.

It was against supporting free trade while simultaneously screwing over those who got the short-end of the stick with entitlement 'reform'.

Have fun trying to put together a cogent response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #122)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:22 AM

123. The President is the head of the Party. There's no other test. Again, Deal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:25 AM

125. What the Hell Does that Mean?

So he's bossing Pelosi and Reid around, right?

Separation of powers are just words on a God-damn piece of paper?

Right-wingers suck.

Right-wing democrats suck more.

Republicans posing as democrats suck the very most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:26 AM

127. I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither do you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #127)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:32 AM

130. Of Course you Don't Know What You're Talking About...

"The President is the head of the party..." doesn't mean a damn thing, and doesn't address my comments about the President or the FTA he's negotiated.

But feel free to keep on tossing around epithets in lieu of anything substantive. It's not going to win you this debate, but you might feel better about yourself.

Your failure to address my comments was all I needed to know that you're here to hand out garbage wrapped up like a Chistmas present.

PS: Love the red suit, Bad Santa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #130)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:34 AM

132. This is just a train-wreck of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The anger is misdirected,

as well.

Also, that's not what "epithet" means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #132)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:47 AM

135. Thanks for the Grammar Lesson...

Saying my anger is misdirected doesn't make it necessarily so, however.

By neglecting to mention where my anger should be neglected, I can only assume that you're not interested in adding anything to the conversation but more insults.

I think that is the proper word used in the proper context.

But thanx, anyways.

Each new comment you add bumps the thread up to the top of the ces pool, and allows the real democrats around here to see what the fakes are all standing up for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #127)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:39 PM

144. +1

Anonymous rants (with lots of vulgarity for effect) on a political discussion board followed up with declarations of righteousness and certainty about one's position are always so convincing and educational. Especially to the ranter who defends their diatribe by shouting and screaming about being a "real" Democrat.

There's the real world, and then there's the fringe world...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #144)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:42 PM

149. Then there's the assholes...

Then there's the assholes who attack the messenger because of the message.

I double-dog dare you to tell us why you think trade with Red China is both moral and good. While you're at it, you can tell us why cutting the government aid for those Americans whose jobs have been outsourced is a swell idea, or for aid to those who can't make ends meet because of depressed wages due to overseas 'competition' is.

You won't, because you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #149)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:03 PM

150. Actually, I have no problem

with the message, it's just that I find the messenger to be an "I'm the only real Democrat here" kind of a self-righteous asshole. Evidently it takes one to know one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #149)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:38 AM

157. When my cat gets this way, the vet calls it "non-referential aggression".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #122)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:25 AM

124. And the President *also* likely supports "entitlement reform". Still a "Democrat". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:34 AM

131. Really?

Then I guess it's time to talk about what democrats, and the democratic party actually stands for, then, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #131)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:36 AM

133. That's a lot different thread than the one you've started here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #133)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:44 AM

134. No, It Isn't...

Post #1... way up there at the top?

I wrote about fake democrats willing to sacrifice welfare but do nothing about free trade, even though the two were inextricably linked.

End of debate.

PS: You lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:31 AM

128. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:50 AM

136. I think they spent to much time watching "Death Valley

They thought he was a real man instead of a puppet...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:54 AM

140. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:23 PM

141. I hate the constant chiseling away of social safety nets, the social contract and settled law

-- e.g., the constitutional privacy rights of abortion for women. There's no charge of "purist" for any Democrats who stand their ground on these bullshit 'amendments'and 'reforms,' on changing filibuster rules, on restoring Glass Steagall, on rescinding the Patriot Act, on stopping all domestic drone use...and on and on. Honesty, and the greatest good for the greatest number should be what the Democratic Party stands for.

I'm totally with OAD here. Fuck all the corporate proxy fakery that passes for 'reasonableness' and 'governance,' whether it's connected to "free" trade or domestic "entitlement reform." There may or may not be a connection. But one issue here is clearly, fairly asserted. There has existed the official version of what the Democratic Party stands for and there is the real history. I know which identity the current party's leadership stands for, and that party had better listen to already-screaming polls about what the vast majority of Americans want, and not just Democratic constituents. Democrats didn't stand in voting lines for five to ten hours to have this exhausting theater of compromise, spite and hostage taking play out yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:03 PM

145. Actually ... I consider myself a Reagan Democrat

If it wasn't for Reagan, I wouldn't be a Democrat.

Cheers
Drifter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:49 AM

152. If you want the Democratic Party to change, first step is to destroy the Republican Party

One major reason I got over my anger with Obama a couple of years ago is because I slowly realized how much his mere existence as President was causing the Republican Party to crumble.
(Stay with me on this one. This is a long post but it's worth it.)

In my thread A long story about the Southern Strategy, I break down the whole reason why the political parties exist the way they do from the very beginning.

See, the Democratic Party used to be the party of the Southern slaveowners (goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson).
It wasn't until the Great Depression & Franklin Roosevelt that the party became something worthy to support.
The times shape the parties & Roosevelt was trying to stop a potential Revolution by putting together his New Deal Coalition.
That's how he got elected a record 4 times in a row by landslide everytime (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944).

(check the electoral maps on all of the Presidential election links I post in this reply)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1944

But everytime the newly reformed Democratic Party tried to help Black people, you saw that original Southern block rebel.
Harry Truman desegregates the Military in 1948 with Executive Order 9981 & look at what happened in that 1948 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948

Much of the South votes for Strom Thurmond, the racist U.S. Senator from South Carolina, in this newly concocted party called the "States' Rights" Democrats—Dixiecrats to their closest friends.
Those Southern bigots stymied this newly shaped Democratic Party trying to retain its old grudge against Blacks ever since their Civil War defeat.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower scared the bigots some more when he helped the Black kids go to school in a integrated fashion in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Way to take command of the Arkansas National Guard & back 'em up with the 101st Airborne Division, Ike!
So in the 1950s the Southern bigots didn't know WHERE to turn (check 1952 & 1956).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956

You had the Democrats helping the Negroes on one side but then you had the Republicans helping the Negroes on the other side.
Eisenhower once told his Secretary of Navy "there must be no second class citizens in this country" & pushed forward on many Civil Rights measures.

When Democrat John Kennedy got in there in 1960, the South was ALL scrambled up.
Putting rival Lyndon Johnson as his VP may have cooled some heated waters but I bet money the South was very uneasy with this relatively young Catholic guy in that seat having an open ear to Black people.
That's why they shot him. He was going to end Jim Crow in the South with a new Civil Rights Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

Then surprise surprise just like in the fallout of FDR's death making Harry Truman the President, ANOTHER Southerner pushes landmark legislation that ends a racist order after his predecessor dies.
FDR dies, Harry Truman from Missouri ends segregation in the Military.
JFK dies, Lyndon Johnson from Texas ends segregation in the Nation.

That 1964 Civil Rights Act was the straw that broke the South's back.
They fled from the Democratic Party in exodus cleansing the party of that regressive racist block forever.
Check the aftermath of that Act's force in the 1964 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

And just like in the transition from Roosevelt to Truman, the Democrats lose the next election thanks to a stupid war.
Truman loses power fighting Korea & the Republicans take over in 1952 through Dwight Eisenhower.
Johnson loses power fighting Vietnam & the Republicans take over in 1968 through Richard Nixon.

They called it the Solid South for a reason. South = Slaveowning Democrats.
This became especially solid after the Civil War.
They nearly ALWAYS voted the same & virtually ALWAYS voted for the Democrats.
Check out what happened in the 1968 election with a fractured Democratic Party (choice candidate Robert Kennedy got killed after incumbent Lyndon Johnson drops out of the running) facing a vengeful South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

Segregationist George Wallace, the Alabama Governor, pulls his 3rd party Strom Thurmond-style run under the label American Independent Party & captures most of that Solid South.
Most of the rest goes to Republican Richard Nixon in this introduction of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy for voting numbers.
Texas stayed Democrat in honor of LBJ, I suppose.

In 1972, George Wallace runs again under the Democratic Party trying to return that old South to the party before conveniently getting shot & paralyzed. Hmmm...
Nixon cleans up without any outside interference. Super Landslide style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a curiously NON-racist Southern Governor from Georgia, puts a hitch into the Republicans' Southern Strategy by somehow pulling that Solid South back into the Democratic field winning the White House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976

He wasn't a racist, he wasn't a segregationist. Sure he was a Southerner & all but how did he get the South back on board without those antagonistic beliefs?
Was Watergate REALLY that bad of a scandal for the Republicans?
Naturally, Jimmy's image had to be destroyed.

Here comes 1980 & the crushing of Jimmy Carter's image is complete.
Ronald Reagan can lock down this Southern Strategy for good & turn this Solid South Republican permanently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

With that move the Republicans could finally get started in earnest dismantling the New Deal Legacy which includes the Great Society programs.
High taxes on the rich to boost the infrastructure were leveled. Unions were leveled. Regulations were leveled.
Income was stagnant for workers while income boosted to unbelievable heights for CEOs.
The national discourse was totally transformed as people talked about job creators & welfare queens in this new worship of the wealthy/demonization of the poor.
People collecting Social Security checks crying out against Socialism.
People talking about Bootstraps as they marvel at the Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous.

Democrats had no chance in this new climate as the elections of 1984 & 1988 showed.
Mondale & Dukakis? Are you serious?
Just give it to Ronald Reagan & George Bush I, why don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988

Under this new mode called The Third Way, they created a Democratic Leadership Council that could appeal to Republicans & win a few votes.
Yeah, you had to compromise principle to get 'em but that's the way the game had to be played in the era of Reaganism.
Thanks to interference from a malcontent Republican called Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, the Governor from Arkansas, employed this strategy to sweep into office in 1992.
Yep, another Southerner. And first time in a long time since a decent number of Southern states voted for a Democratic President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

But he had to be a MUCH milder Democrat than those of the past because of the demographics which got him into office.
He passed Republican plans like George Bush I's NAFTA & allowed some deregulation of commerce/industry.
He still created a surplus though, and this was too much for the Republicans dependent on rooting out the Democratic Party forever.
Enter Fox News & the scandal hunt that went from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky.
You saw the result of the 1996 election. He was getting stronger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

By 2000, revenge on Clinton's Democratic resurgence was complete with Clinton's VP Al Gore keeping Clinton at arm's length because of the scandal & George Bush II taking advantage of that vote-costing move with the fiasco in Florida.
Check out how that Solid South voted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Republicans had the key to the store now. It was all theirs.
Republican Executive Branch through George Bush Jr.
Republican Legislative Branch through the Republican majority Congress in Senate & House (50-50 Senate leans to Republican VP Dick Cheney breaking the tie).
Republican-favoring Judicial Branch with more Supreme Court Justices being conservative vs. liberal.
Then 9/11 happened, the first major foreign attack on the U.S. mainland since the 1800s.

Bush Jr. used the anger from that tragedy to get the country back into war mode.
It could connect himself to the legacy of his father who presided over the 1991 Gulf War & it could make a lot of his various business associates very rich.
So nevermind Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, let's get Saddam Hussein in Iraq!
"All those Muslims look the same anyhow right?"

Now Democrats were scared to look weak in a time of war & went along with Bush in order to avoid the wrath of an vengeful electorate.
So much for 2004's chances, John Kerry. I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Bushed again & then here comes Katrina in New Orleans.
"Heckuva job Brownie!" Bush II says with cake frosting on the side of his mouth. You know that party him & John McCain had.

Let's get these idiots Democrats! But after they made their 2006 victory in Congress, they had to "keep their powder dry".
Maybe it was destiny that we had to endure the Republicans running the show.
Maybe that's what it took to cause that party to crack.
Saddam was dead, Al Qaeda's putting out endless home videos of Bin Laden bragging on the state of his non-death, & the wars went on without any kind of point. Yes Virginia, there never was no WMD.
Even Republicans were getting sick of Republicans at this point.

Then here comes a golden opportunity in 2008 & who cashes in on this opportunity?
Barack Obama! The First Black President!
Guy came out of nowhere & stopped the inevitable Hillary Clinton in her tracks.
She would have been the President had it not been for him.

Remember, the Solid South still isn't over their resentment of the Blacks.
Individuals aside, the South & its allied rural regions in the country still remain antagonistic to the Democrats which has housed this loyal Black block since the days of FDR & especially JFK & LBJ.
But this miracle man somehow turned North Carolina & Indiana his way. The Klan set up shop in Indiana years ago.
He was flipping states left & right! Change WAS coming! Unprecedented turnout!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Still Obama had to work within the culture that was before him.
Nixon didn't immediately shut down everything that the New Deal achieved.
He set it up for the next Republican to take it further who would set it up for the next Republican & so on.
We had about 30 years of Reaganism & Obama being a Black man makes it even MORE difficult to get things done.
They KNEW he was a Progressive just waiting for his chance to reverse the nation's discourse like Reagan did in his time.

The Republicans knew Obama's existence was absolute poison to their long term viability especially with increasingly diverse demographic trends.
Courting those bigoted Whites of the Solid South all those years alienated everybody else including some Whites.
If Obama succeeds, the Republican Party & its Southern Strategy fails.
Enter the Tea Party brand of the Republican Party.
He MUST be a One Term President.

They failed in 2012, OneAngryDemocrat.
They failed miserably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

In the aftermath, we see Fox News shattering. We see bigoted pundits talking about the end of the White Establishment on live TV.
We see people nearly overnight give up the opposition on gay marriage, tax raises on the rich, & Obamacare.
We see Republicans buckle under Obama's might as they distance themselves from Grover Norquist's pledge.
We're talking about the power of unions again.

All this history I showed you about the Presidential elections shows who the problem is.
Those regressive folks that used to be in the Democratic Party are now in the Republican Party.
These are the descendants of the people who broke up the Union over the slavery issue 150 years ago.
They have to be rooted out once & for all.
Either they CHANGE or they become ESTRANGED from the discourse of the nation.

It was destiny that power would return to the Democratic Party of FDR.
We had to go through a few decades of growing pains as the Republican Party enjoyed the short term boost of the Solid South bigots.
It was destiny that a Black man of all people signaled the return of that power.
It was destiny that this Black man finished off the remnants of the Dixiecrats who are still in mourning over the defeat of Dixie in the Civil War.

Obama will secure the Democratic Party for decades to come.
The Republican Party whether they stay the same or change in wholesale will die one way or another.
They'll die in total or their conservative ideology will die.

We are beginning to reverse the course of the nation back into its rightful Progressive direction.
By locking down the White House in 2016 & 2020 along with immediate command of the Congress starting 2014, we will finish off the Republican Party on the National & Regional Stage.

Eventually with the Democratic Party as the only game in town (sort of like how it was in the early 1800s), it will split upon itself creating a Centrist party & a Progressive party.
Then you will see your purely intentioned Progressive-only party.
That won't happen until the Republican Party is dead.

Chances are the Republican Party will merge into the Libertarian Party ending that old coalition we have seen since 1968.
That's probably what's gonna happen in the short term.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread