Stupid Republican idea of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter acsenray
  • Start date Start date
Your lack of refutation (three cite minimum with lines and circles and a paragraph on each of the Web pages) proves that I am correct.
 
Peanut Gallery said:
Today, Tom Sullivan told me that the Chrysler dealers being closed (suggested to be closed?) were picked based on the political donations of the dealership owners. Dealership owners with R donations were on Obama's Enemies List (no shit), and had to go.

Hypothetical pop quiz: You own a business. Your business thrives on polluting. Which party do you donate to?
Click to expand...
Funny you should bring that up -- a simple analysis was posted on fivethirtyeight today. Of the available data on the contributions that car dealers made to Democratic or Republican candidates, 88% of the money went to Republican candidates.
 
Then there is Eric Cantor, who wants to defeat Obama's Health Care simply because he wants to render the President in effective.
 
Really Not All That Bright said:
Well, he is a Republican... but I'm not sure banging some hot Argentine chick really qualifies as a symptom of a psychological disorder.
Click to expand...
Do we know she's hot?

RNATB said:
You can't really hold this one against them. They don't have a graphic for Republicans who have heterosexual affairs.
Click to expand...
David Vitter kind of counts, and I think Ensign's situation was similar to Sanford's.
 
Punoqllads said:
Funny you should bring that up -- a simple analysis was posted on fivethirtyeight today. Of the available data on the contributions that car dealers made to Democratic or Republican candidates, 88% of the money went to Republican candidates.
Click to expand...

Wow, they're closing 88% of the dealerships?

-Joe
 
Equipoise said:
Whoo! All the 'Let 'em drown and rot in the sun*' supporters have themselves a champion. Meet Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)





*Gotta come up with a catchy name for these folks.
Click to expand...

Now, of course, we could make a major dent in the Federal debt if we simply asked the people who elected the Honorable Ms. Blackburn to repay every penny put into T.V.A. since its inception -- with compound interest.

That was for flood control, along with rural electrification, right? Just like Katrina and tsunami relief.

Tennesseeans? What do you think about the idea?

If there's one thing the Federal government should unquestionably be doing along the lines of public relief, it would be responding to widespread disaster relief -- the kind of thing that wipes out 2/3 of a state, you know?
 
BrightNShiny said:
Unfortunately, Dumbocrat politicians often follow the lead of stupid right-wingers.



I can't tell from the article, but it looks like that's from a glossary of terms.
Click to expand...
I wonder. Is there a chance the original report is floating around on the web?
 
Except that Rio is not in Argentina. :)

Anyways, he might not be crazy, as in "why don't you try this white shirt with very long sleeves for a little while?" crazy, but that was incredibly bizarre.
 
In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.
Click to expand...
I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.
 
Voyager said:
Legislative government might be beholding to us at the voting booth every few years, but most of the time they are beholden to the lobbyists with the checks. Or, if they are Republicans, to Rush.
Click to expand...
You do realize that you are merely substantiating my position that the people run the government only tangentially, don't you?

Voyager said:
Why would someone in adminstrative government randomly refuse someone?
Click to expand...
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. It isn't that I think people will be refused randomly; it's that I think that in time they will be refused as a matter of course. In much the same way that the government routinely refuses Medicaid and Social Security disability to people who truly deserve it.

Voyager said:
Unlike someone in business, their loyalty is to the taxpayers, and their bosses, not to the stockholders.
Click to expand...
My experience has been that bureaucrats who work in government offices know their jobs are secure and they couldn't care less in terms of loyalty or appreciation when it comes to their taxpayer customer base. This isn't to say that some don't do their jobs in a pleasant, helpful manner, but I've never seen, heard or read anything that indicates to me that the person behind the counter at a government office or sitting in a cubicle making decisions about benefits feels that slightest bit of alliegance or loyalty to taxpayers.

Voyager said:
Sure, some are incompetent, but that is not exclusive to government. If some burger jock at Mickey D's gets your order wrong, that is not an indictment of capitalism.
Click to expand...
The difference there is that you have numerous options other than Mickey D's. When it comes to government benefits and what it decrees you either get or don't get, you have no other choice. You just have to suck it up and take what you get (or don't get).

Voyager said:
If some bureaucrat is being truly obnoxious, you have the option of going to your local legislator to complain - and no doubt the problem will get fixed in no time.
Click to expand...
I'm not really talking about obnoxious people; I'm talking about people who simply don't care and make who make decisions related to health care and other benefits based solely on what they're told to do by their superiors. If their superiors say "We're adopting the practice of automatically denying disability benefits upon first application and first and second appeal, then that's what they'll do...and then they'll get pissed at people who complain about it and challenge it because their department's policy creates a culture that sets them at odds with deserving applicants and they have no say in it anyway. So an attitude of detachment takes hold and they operate largely as automotons and couldn't care less what the recipients of their decisions think about them.

But even so, they aren't the real problem. The people higher up who make the decisions to routinely deny benefits in the first place are. And complaining to one's congressman is unlikely to accomplish anything, or if it does, it's only to that particular complainant.

Voyager said:
Try that in business.
Click to expand...
I have. And in most cases by far I've gotten a satisfactory response. Businesses by and large have to rely on customer good will in order to stay in business and/or to maximize their sales and profits. Government is under no such fear. It couldn't care less whether you're happy with its decsions or not.

Voyager said:
BTW, I had to renew my drivers license yesterday, facing the awful MVB bureaucrats in understaffed California. This involved an eye test, a new photo, and a thumbprint. I was in and out of there in under 20 minutes. When I'm stuck going to Lucky's, I spend more time than that in the checkout line. Not only was the system set up efficiently, there was a guy who asked who was waiting for a license renewal and gave us our eye test while we were waiting for a clerk to open up. Awesomely efficient.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. Same thing here in the small suburban bedroom community I life in which is next to a sprawling metropolitan area of close to 1.5 million people. However, in that larger metropolitan area it's not at all uncommon to arrive at the DMV to take a driving test and have to sit and wait for hours and hours, and then at 4:30 p.m. be told that no more applicants would be processed that day and come back again tomorrow. So people are constantly having to take a day off work, spend that day sitting on their ass waiting for the bureaucracy to take care of them, and then having to take another day off to come sit on their ass again in hope of finally getting their driver's licence the next day.

Businesses do not operate that way. Only entities that don't care (because they don't have to) do.

Which brings to mind another problem that plagues government bureaucracies, and that is the matter of funding. With proper funding, there would be enough examiners and enough people shuffling paperwork so that people wouldn't have to take a number and sit all one day and part of the next waiting to be taken care of. Businesses generally have sufficient people on duty to take care of their customers. Since government doesn't really have customers but rather some form of supplicants, its attitude is different.
 
elucidator said:
Not a lot of rabble to rouse in gated communities.
Click to expand...
Not a lot of Republicans either, since most are just normal people like ayone else.

This meme of Republicans and conservatives all being rich and living protected, insular lives is utterly false and is the result of deliberate classism on the part of Democrats and liberals, who rely on jealousy and resentment in order to harvest votes from the envious and poor.
 
Steele seems to think he represents the Congressional Republicans or something somehow. His job is to raise money for the party and decide which national races that money should go to. It's not a governing position. It's not even an ideological position. It's a purely political position.

And I think the same of Howard Dean, if there's any thought that I'm downplaying it only because it's the RNC. Dean had the 50-state strategy. He was instrumental in growing the Democratic majority and getting Obama elected. But he would have had no reason to confer with Bush, at all. Of course, Dean knew that and never pretended that Bush was snubbing him or something.
 
Gangster Octopus said:
Then there is Eric Cantor, who wants to defeat Obama's Health Care simply because he wants to render the President in effective.
Click to expand...

Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint and about 3/4 of the Republican Caucus in Congress. This isn't about serving their constituents for them. This is about somehow stopping the precipitous slide of their party. Unfortunately for them, it's only Item 4, 352 on the list of reasons that their party is falling out from under them.
 
There is no trolling so over-the-top that it can't be confused with the scrawlings of a sufficiently obtuse writer.
 
Michael Steele was on NPR and gave his interviewer, Steve Inskeep a hard time because Inskeep called his answers "nuanced".

Steele is a real idiot.
 
Back
Top