GOP Failure Watch Part III

Oh Joe, don't tell me you can't understand the difference between being willing to be in business with someone and bankrolling them. Your first link is to something that's based on the "Rothschild formula" and is from a book about the Fed, prominently featured on the Glenn Beck show (), which is so beneath you. Your second link is to an anarchist crank expelled from the Hoover institution (haha) who wrote that this was all part of the economic power elites' "long-range program of nurturing collectivism" and fostering "corporate socialism" in order to ensure "monopoly acquisition of wealth", because it "would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market". FFS, he wrote a secret history of Skull and Bones (yes, the Yale fraternity) as if it was some conspiracy!
If Trosky received money from Schiff and co., it was because they supported his Jewish agenda, and even then, that money was miniscule. Most of the funding for the Communists came from Germany (many Soviet leaders were obvious German agents) because they were designed to foment revolution and force Russia out of the war. They also committed bank robberies to support Lenin, but even you wouldn't consider that "financier support".
As if the Rothschilds, at the time heavily involved in the oilfields near Baku were bankrolling the Communists. What a joke.

You're better than this Joe - you're succumbing to paranoid fantasies, and you're quoting from them. There's no question that corporatism financed a number of coups in central/latin American, but the notion that Communists and similar rebels were funding by business interests is just preposterous.

Having done a significant portion of my academic work on the Russian Revolution, I'm actually quite interested in that subject. But addressing your awful, awful post is something I'm interested in.

 

Here's a question for discussion: where will the non-insane Republican voters turn now that their Party has been hijacked? A Democratic Party willing to further compromise it's core beliefs, or a 3rd party? I believe that they will do what many have done so far: run to the Dems, who can afford to be center-right and still come across as "liberal." Bad news for the working class.

 

One of the few things I am happy about is that I was able to take a class taught by W Bruce Lincoln while both of us were still at NIU. I would not have had that opportunity at a larger institution.

 

There were some pretty good historians at NIU back in the day.

Of course, once Willie Roy took over the soccer team, their status was dwarfed.

 

Yeah, before they died/retired/moved on. Don't know about the new bunch. Did you go there? Which years?

 

I went somewhere else, but if I'd gone to Northern, I would've looked into history. I've since met history profs who did undergrad there, and they all liked it quite a bit.

I'd be surprised if it was still as good as it used to be, just because those things go in cycles and Illinois isn't supporting the regional campuses like they used to.

 

I started at Iowa to study under Shelton Stromquist. He had written about slaughterhouse workers, and I had just finished my first stint as one during the previous summer. However, as tends to be the case at larger institutions, I found Iowa too impersonal for us undergrads and unfulfilling. Raising their tuition for out-of-state students 20% settled the matter, and he suggested NIU. Whereas at Iowa, an undergrad had virtually no chance to discuss the subjects with the actual professors teaching the courses, instead having to make appointments to even talk with their graduate assistants, the professors at NIU would sit in their offices with the doors open and practically beg passersby to come in! LOL
If you had gone to NIU, and if I ever make it back, I'll look into what I am taking now at the local JuCo: accounting It pays way more.

 

Okay, dude. Let's take a quick look at the status of the "working class" around the world and you tell me how much work they're getting. Sure, our safety net's not as good as France's is, or England's, or Spain's, but then we're not in a depression and have dropping birth rates. We're also not as racist. So let's stop the nonsense that the Democrats are center-right because I don't think you've been to these other "enlightened" countries if you think they hold a candle to us on a ton of social issues. Ask Germany about immigration. Ask France about respecting the rights of Muslims. Go check out Italy's gender norms. When you're done with those, give me an update on the other pond: how do Australia and Japan do when it comes to gender and race?

And then come back and tell me the Democrats are center-right.

You know why we have a more moderate country? Some scholars say it's separation of powers. We've had three times (1933-1938, 1965-1966, 2009-2010) when Democrats had supermajorities since 1920, and each time we've gotten quite a lot of progressive legislation. The rest of the time, we've had divided government or full Republican control. Other scholars suggest that it's because we established safety nets before working conditions got too bad. Britain and Spain don't have to worry about sharing power because when they elect a majority, they do everything they want. Hard to catch up when every 8-12 years our team has to just stop and sit around waiting.

Go find my post, about Barack's successes, from July 2012. Actually do it this time because I'm sick and tired of your portion of my side of the ideological spectrum not doing it's homework because the truth just doesn't fit the narrative. Then go grab a goddamn book, and not one you can find at Barnes and Noble to make you feel good about the impending Democratic supermajority for the next 200 years.

 

This whole thing is baffling. Wouldnt it have been a better strategy for the republicans to allow this through, and just hammer the shit out of the dems on the cooporate exemption? Turn around and say, "See, if you dont want the cronyism vote repulican in 2014!", or something to that effect?

That seems like a winning and more importantly sane strategy to me. Whats the problem republicans ?

 

They are afraid that people will like affordable, subsidized healthcare

 

This!

If the Reeps really thought "Obamacare" was a horrible idea, they'd let it pass and then sit back, watch the disaster unfold and sweep the midterm elections and THEN repeal "Obamacare".

The truth is they want to kill it NOW because they expect it to be at least slightly better than what we have now and that terrifies and enrages them.

 

They are certain that people will like affordable, subsidized healthcare.

And there's this-- in the effort to demean it, they've made a monument of it.

We don't have "Franklinpensions" or "Lyndonvoters" or "Ikeways." Despite several proposals, there's no state of Jefferson in the Louisiana purchase. The Brady Bill and Nixonomics and Reaganomics have come and gone. The Bush Doctrine will be swept into the distbin ASAP.

But this will be called "Obamacare" from now till forever...

 

Yep - because they obviously don't have a problem with sitting back and watching the country go to hell.

 

Lincoln was a reason I chose NIU. Then, he went on decade sabbatical and I never saw the guy. They kept him on the marquee though. I felt cheated and still do. What year did you have him?

 

I remember that! Haha.. all the other professors were jealous as hell! Oh well, he needed to write books and Jackie O needed the work. He taught some seminars. I took one in 96 though the Honors program.
BTW, did you know his wife ran NIU's publishing arm?
What class were you? Ya shoulda talked to either Marv or George (not Meg George). They'd have set you up.

 

"'MURICA, GOD-DAMNIT!!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!! WOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA /MeMockingYou
France, England, and Spain are not in a Depression, either. Exaggerate much? Not as racist? Are you kidding me? When was the last time that you spoke with an actual, living, breathing Arab, Mexican, Mexican-American, or African-American? Ask a Muslim about being "respected," especially at airports.

Ok... the Democrats are center-right. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner after I came back home to good old "'MURICA, GOD-DAMNIT!"

We have a more moderate government. That's because both parties have sold it out to Wall Street. Next......................

Wait a minute... you tell me to find YOUR work? Fukcin lazy-ass trash. Ruining this country. I tells ya.
Check out "Empire's New Clothes" by my favorite professor from my NIU days: Paul Street. Also, check out the Black Agenda Report while you are at it.

And remember:
" 'MURICA, GOD-DAMNIT!!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!! WE'RE #1!!! WE'RE #1!!! WE'RE #1!!! USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!" /MeMockingYou - again

I love how you take the same approach that your opponent takes when it is pointed out that you resemble your opponents. Blind Jack-ass Party hacks. Gotta love 'em.

 

Look, you're obviously very proud of the fact that you can be critical of the country you live in. Congratulations. I can be very critical of our country, too, but I don't think I've learned to respect your penchant for comparing us to some ideal that doesn't really exist. Some things you might want to consider:

1) Spain's economy has been at zero growth or contracted for the last eight quarters. I'd call that a depression, although you might want to ask one of the economists floating around here for the technical definition. 10 quarters? I will concede that the UK and France have avoided a technical depression by posting economic growth numbers of 0.3% and 0.0% over the past two years.

2) My father-in-law is Mexican-American, as are (partly) his children and grandchildren. I have a good friend from college who is from the Middle East and I've actually been through an airport with him. We built in an extra four hours to our trip just in case.

I am very happy for you that you've found the answer to our country's moderation with one simple sound bite. I'm sure it explains most of our problems. I guess I lack the certainty of my convictions that you do.

3) https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...thread-part-iv.1825068/page-142#post-26452737

There. That wasn't too hard. Our current President has a 64% rate as of one year ago. Let's see if that changed any:


The Obameter Scorecard

• Promise Kept 241 (45%)

• Compromise 131 (25%)

• Promise Broken 118 (22%)

• Stalled 5 (1%)

• In the Works 30 (6%)

• Not yet rated 7 (1%)

Total = 525 (ignore the 7 not rated). Given my earlier metric, Promise Kept = 1, Compromise = 0.50, Broken = 0, Stalled = 0.25, and In the Works = 0.75. So we get 241 + 65.5 + 1.25 + 22.5 = 330.25/525, or 62.90%. Some slippage from his 63.7% success the prior round, probably because he made a few more promises last election and hasn't had an opportunity to carry them out with a GOP House. Now your turn: are you willing to go through those 525 statements and tell me none of them surprised you? Or are we going to be treated to another temper tantrum?

4) The two major parties in the USA don't have to worry about the likes of the Le Pens or Nick Griffin in our politics any more. That's what I'm getting at. Yes, we have lots of problems - David Duke wasn't that long ago - but I don't think you could favorably compare Europe to us. We have a more liberal federal gay-marriage policy than Germany, a more liberal immigration policy than the UK, and a more tolerant society towards Islam than Switzerland or France.

 

That's strange... I was thinking precisely that the other day.

The only thing is, are we really sure the GOP won't try and claim credit for it if it becomes popular? Y'know, it WOULD have been bad but for the excellent improvements they made. That kinda thing?

We've got the same thing over here with the tories saying that Labour didn't regulate the banks enough DESPITE the fact that, when they were in opposition, they said labour was controlling them too MUCH and not letting the free market sort itself out.

 

Well, neither do we to be fair but that's largely a function of us having a first past the post system and not proportional representation, the same as you fellas.

 

I'm sorry, what is our federal gay marriage policy? There really isn't one. We allow the states to decide. The federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage when it comes to immigration, for example.
Speaking of immigration and the federal policy, do you mean the one where Obama has deported more Mexicans than Bush? Or the one where marriages don't count for squat anymore thanks to Clinton? Our policy is liberal if you are a straight Cuban. Damn, joe, at least Reagan granted amnesty. Btw, the number of migrants to Europe has outnumbered the emigrants from Europe for how many years now?
Muslims and racism: I'm sorry, but which seaport was it that the Dems screamed holy hell about because the contract to manage it was won by a Muslim and not a " 'MURICAN', GAWT-DAMMIT!"
Let's be real: the Tea Party and other white-wing idiots of the Republican Party made Obama look so good that the non-insane Republicans who voted for Bush in 00 and 04 jumped ship and voted for him in 08 and 12. Two words: Colin Powell.
FDR created Social Security during a time of great national crisis. He didn't cut it and TWICE offer it up to the Repubs who, to their credit, refused to touch it. He went after the banks, creating Glass-Steagall. Clinton and the Dems helped kill it, and Obama and the Dems did nothing to re-enact its policies. Dodd-Frank in all honesty offers NO SAFEGUARDS against a repeat of the meltdown.
I won't even touch the wars that Obama expanded and wishes to start, or the torture, or the assassinations of US-born citizens, or the infinite imprisonment, or the renditions, or the NSA spying...
Please tell me again how "liberal" they are? Well, they are when compared to Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the Tea Partiers. But they are most certainly not when compared to Europe or FDR. FDR went after big business and created social safety nets. Obama forces labor and those on Social Security to take cutbacks in exchange for subsidizing corporate America. "We have to tighten our belts" he said, while making the fat cats even more fat.
You can cite the promises he kept, because he made ambiguous promises where his center-right policies (forcing Americans to take part in for-profit private health insurance programs, then saying he has made health CARE affordable), but he is neither a champion nor really a defender of the working class. Sorry, mate, I'm not some blind, hope-notized, useful idiot loyal party hack.
If you do not know that our government is being run by the corporations, not only are you blind, but you are either stupid or naive as well. I'll let you take your pick.

edit:
re temper tantrum: you are the one whose head exploded and went on an ad-hom rant. LOL

 

In fairness he is a pompous ass but he is far from Stupid. Seriously that is about the only thing in your post I disagree with. He is however the most dangerous sort, since he is a zealous true believer. Our cries for mercy will not move him one iota since the pain we suffer is for the greater good and thus benefits us in the long run.

 

I'm letting him choose: stupid or naive. He's obviously a partisan hack.

The pain we suffer is only temporary because once all that corporate welfare that Obama dished out trickles down to us, we'll be on Easy Street. That is one of Reagan's great ideas that Obama cited numerous times in 08.

 

Elaborate.

 

Are commercial banks and investment banks allowed to get in bed with securities firms and have a menage-a-trois? The same evil screwing over of the public that led to the Great Depression and the collapse in 08? Yes? Well, there ya go.

 

Surely, the point at issue isn't whether he could have done more but, in the present political climate, could anyone have done any better.

I remember saying when he was chosen that I felt Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice and people said that Obama was more likely to get elected because he was more 'saleable' to the electorate. He was more likely to appeal to 'middle of the road' voters and could 'work with the GOP'.

Well, so much for THAT plan I guess but the thing is, whose fault is that?