Party of No
in [Toyota]
|
From: tankfixer on 25 May 2010 00:10 In article <hterv0$vd3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sid9(a)belsouth.net says... > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:diCKn.74930$0M5.59856(a)newsfe07.iad... > > On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:37:30 -0400, Cliff wrote: > > > >> "Party of No: How Republicans and the Right Have Tried to Thwart All > >> Social > >> Progress" > > > > You spelled "Socialism" wrong. > > > > > > > . > . > You only know Limbo's definition of Socialism. > > Where was Limbo today, anyway? > How would I know ? I'm not the one obsessed with him
From: Sharx35 on 25 May 2010 02:41 "Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message news:dholv5hai7rfj9qdgfave6fr9vm3i3a6ur(a)4ax.com... > > http://www.alternet.org/news/146965/party_of_no%3A_how_republicans_and_the_right_have_tried_to_thwart_all_social_progress > "Party of No: How Republicans and the Right Have Tried to Thwart All > Social > Progress" > "You name it, the right has opposed it: civil rights, school > desegregation, > women's rights, labor organizing, the minimum wage, LGBT rights, welfare, > immigrant rights. " > [ > May 23, 2010 As much as they may grumble, there is a legitimate reason > why the > Republicans have been labeled the "Party of No." For decades, the party's > kneejerk stance has been to oppose any legislation or policy involving > social, > economic or political progress. > > You name it, the right has opposed it: civil rights, school desegregation, > women's rights, labor organizing, the minimum wage, social security, LGBT > rights, welfare, immigrant rights, public education, reproductive rights, > Medicare, Medicaid. And through the years the right invoked hysterical > rhetoric > in opposition, predicting that implementing any such policies would result > in > the end-of-family-free-enterprise-God-America on the one hand, and the > imposition of atheism-socialism-Nazism on the other. > > Republicans are obstructionist for one simple reason: it's a winning > strategy. > Opposing progressive policies allows the right to actualize the ideals > that both > motivate and define their base. Rightist ideologies are not without > sophistication, but right-wing politicians and media figures boil them > down to a > crude Manichean dualism to mobilize supporters based on group difference: > good > versus evil, us versus them. By demonizing and scapegoating politically > marginal > groups, the right is able to define "real Americans," who are good, versus > those > defined as parasites, illegitimate and internal threats, who are evil. > ..... > Sara Diamond neatly summarizes the politics behind the right's > obstructionism in > her book, Roads To Dominion. She writes, "To be right-wing means to > support the > state in its capacity as enforcer of order and to oppose the state as > distributor of wealth and power downward and more equitably in society." > (emphasis in original) These principles, in turn, flow from four > interrelated > political philosophies that animate the modern right: militarism, > neoliberalism, > traditionalism and white supremacism. > .... > ] Bullshit.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 25 May 2010 03:22 On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:57:17 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > On May 24, 6:51 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> >> news:diCKn.74930$0M5.59856(a)newsfe07.iad... >> >> > On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:37:30 -0400, Cliff wrote: >> >> >> "Party of No: How Republicans and the Right Have Tried to Thwart >> >> All Social >> >> Progress" >> >> Just because it's called progressive does not mean it's progress. >> >> Republicans believe you have no right to demand anything, Democrats >> believe they have a right to demand everything. >> >> What's mine is mine. That's Republican. >> >> What's yours is mine too, that's Democrat. >> >> Republicans would teach people to fish so they can collect their own >> food. Democrats drain the lake so people look to them for the fish. > > Not true - republicans - my profit is mine, my loss is yours. Um, it was Obama that bailed out GM. Their loss is...your loss.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 25 May 2010 03:26 On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:54:25 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:urDKn.30582$wV2.19022(a)newsfe23.iad... >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:39:32 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:diCKn.74930$0M5.59856(a)newsfe07.iad... >>>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:37:30 -0400, Cliff wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Party of No: How Republicans and the Right Have Tried to Thwart >>>>> All Social >>>>> Progress" >>>> >>>> You spelled "Socialism" wrong. >>> >>> >>> Your mom is a socialist and she likes it. >> >> Mom lame. Good job, Joey. >> Taking Aratzio lessons in incontiinence? > > > So, you say your mom gets absolutely NO benefits from the government. Are > you absolutely sure? When did I ever say that? > > You'll say you're sure.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 25 May 2010 03:27
On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:56:24 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > On May 24, 6:54 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: >> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> >> news:urDKn.30582$wV2.19022(a)newsfe23.iad... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:39:32 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >> >> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> >>news:diCKn.74930$0M5.59856(a)newsfe07.iad... >> >>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:37:30 -0400, Cliff wrote: >> >> >>>> "Party of No: How Republicans and the Right Have Tried to Thwart >> >>>> All Social >> >>>> Progress" >> >> >>> You spelled "Socialism" wrong. >> >> >> Your mom is a socialist and she likes it. >> >> > Mom lame. Good job, Joey. >> > Taking Aratzio lessons in incontiinence? >> >> So, you say your mom gets absolutely NO benefits from the government. >> Are you absolutely sure? >> >> You'll say you're sure.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > We learned a long time ago every one of these miserable old cranks and > their families are on the government dole in some way You mean, her Social Security? And, she's a "Notch Baby", so she got screwed royally, even though she paid into SSI from it's inception until 1992. That's almost 50 years, and she gets a pittance by comparison. |