shape
carat
color
clarity

Republicans -- The Party of Destruction

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,980
Screen Shot 2017-04-05 at 8.27.42 AM.png https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-party-less-caring-21-century-republicans-gop

"...But if there’s anything 21st-century American life has prepared me for, it’s an old man taking possession of my body and incompetently steering it in directions I don’t want to go, while ignoring my boundaries and lecturing me on the one right way to live. At least Randy cared about that homeless guy, though, which is more than I can say for the Republican party.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the notion of “care” lately. Care can be florid and romantic or bureaucratic and dry; it is maintenance and stewardship and only sometimes love. You can take care of something without personally caring about it, which is precisely what we pay our elected officials to do: take care of our communities and our planet, whether or not you share our priorities and fears and weaknesses and religions and sexual orientations and gender identities and skin colours. We put ourselves and our money in your hands. Take care.

I don’t know that America has ever seen a political party so divested of care. Since Trump took office, Republicans have proposed legislation to destroy unions, the healthcare system, the education system and the Environmental Protection Agency; to defund the reproductive health charity Planned Parenthood and restrict abortion; to stifle public protest and decimate arts funding; to increase the risk of violence against trans people and roll back anti-discrimination laws; and to funnel more and more wealth from the poorest to the richest. Every executive order and piece of GOP legislation is destructive, aimed at dismantling something else, never creating anything new, never in the service of improving the care of the nation.

Contemporary American conservatism is not a political philosophy so much as the roiling negative space around Barack Obama’s legacy. Can you imagine being that insecure? Can you imagine not wanting children to have healthcare because you’re embarrassed a black guy was your boss? It would be sad if it wasn’t so dangerous.

That void at the heart of the party, that loss of any tether to humanity, is breeding anxiety on both sides of the political divide. According to the Atlantic, Florida Republican Tom Rooney recently turned on his cohort with surprising lucidity: “I’ve been in this job eight years and I’m racking my brain to think of one thing our party has done that’s been something positive, that’s been something other than stopping something else from happening. We need to start having victories as a party. And if we can’t, then it’s hard to justify why we should be back here.”

Vindictive obstructionism, it seems, is not particularly nourishing for the soul.

In the wake of the Republican party’s luscious, succulent failure to obliterate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and replace it with catastrophic nationwide poverty and death, an old video of a Paul Ryan gaffe went viral. “We’re not going to give up,” Ryan assures his audience, “on destroying the healthcare system for the American people.”

The clip is from 2013, not 2017, and obviously Ryan did not mean to say into a microphone that he wants to destroy the healthcare system. But here’s the thing. I talk into a microphone in front of people all the time, and not once have I ever accidentally said: “Hitler was pretty cool” when what I meant to say was: “Throw all Nazis into the sea”. Even if we acknowledge that such a slip of the tongue is technically possible (if not likely), we don’t actually need to wonder about what Ryan secretly believes. Gaffe or no, we already know he wants to destroy the healthcare system for the American people, because he tried to pass legislation that would destroy the healthcare system for the American people. And because destruction, not life, is the foundation of Ryan’s party.

Listen to people, and political parties, when they tell you who they are. Don’t trust those who get lost when they’re claiming to show you The Way. Zero stars."
 
This all boils down to what is the purpose of government. That idea varies between parties. It is definitely not the gov's job to be "nourishing for the soul."
 
The biggest concern is social security net which is depleted, this at the time when the baby boomers are getting old and jobs are getting scarce due to ousourcing and AI. The problem is, the GOP does not see any way out except for old "fiscal conservatism". They are politicians.
 
The biggest concern is social security net which is depleted, this at the time when the baby boomers are getting old and jobs are getting scarce due to ousourcing and AI. The problem is, the GOP does not see any magic way out except for "fiscal conservatism".

If the entitlements are not reformed eventually they will not be around for anyone. Neither party has ever wants to do what will be necessary in the end. I wish they would address it rather than push it down the road. I don't think there is a magic way out.
 
Many live in a liberal bubble. Most conservatives I know are very philanthropic. Guess it's easier for some to give away other people's money rather than their own.
 
Many live in a liberal bubble. Most conservatives I know are very philanthropic. Guess it's easier for some to give away other people's money rather than their own.

Can you imagine if all those liberals like Meryl Streep donated the proceeds of their movies where they make tens of millions of dollars. You know, the ones who are against the wall but live in gated communities with armed guards.

Entitlements are fine for those who really need it. My husband works for the State and sees first hand the rampant abuse of people who continue to collect money they are not entitled to.

In my State they finally clamped down on those who were using their check to gamble in the casinos.
 
Can you imagine if all those liberals like Meryl Streep donated the proceeds of their movies where they make tens of millions of dollars. You know, the ones who are against the wall but live in gated communities with armed guards.

Entitlements are fine for those who really need it. My husband works for the State and sees first hand the rampant abuse of people who continue to collect money they are not entitled to.

In my State they finally clamped down on those who were using their check to gamble in the casinos.
Of course we need to help the poor, but for some people entitlements become a career. The more you give the more they want. Heck, why work when you can get it for free.
 
Many live in a liberal bubble. Most conservatives I know are very philanthropic. Guess it's easier for some to give away other people's money rather than their own.

Wow, that's a big generalisation. I also think it's worth noting, that an awful lot of the people who oppose this administration are those of us who (a) already have what are considered 'blue chip' health insurance plans and (b) will probably reap a big, fat tax break out of it.
 
Come on J. I said "many" not all and "most" not all. For all I know, you may be a very generous liberal.
The generalization is that Republicans don't want to help helpless people.
 
Hi,

Of course our Gov't provides "nourishment for the soul". It is built on the ideas of the most profound principles that we have seen In our world. I don't know of anything better.

Annette
 
Hi,

Of course our Gov't provides "nourishment for the soul". It is built on the ideas of the most profound principles that we have seen In our world. I don't know of anything better.

Annette

Of course it is but my soul's nourishment is not given by the government nor should I expect it to be. I can have pride in my country and my government's status as the most profound bastion of liberty on the planet (if that is what you mean by nourishment for the soul) while also expecting they maintain their place as the keeper of the rule of law, national security, and caring for the poor/unable. Other than those things I do not seek them to provide anything for my life.
 
Of course we need to help the poor, but for some people entitlements become a career. The more you give the more they want. Heck, why work when you can get it for free.

Yes, but then, no. Take the children of a so-called welfare mom - they are not to be blamed for being born into this world. Now school lunches program has been cut. For some, it may be the only meal. I have heard about a program here contributing so that they have hot meals in summer time. See, even charity falls on the shoulders of the middle class.
 
Can you imagine if all those liberals like Meryl Streep donated the proceeds of their movies where they make tens of millions of dollars. You know, the ones who are against the wall but live in gated communities with armed guards.

Entitlements are fine for those who really need it. My husband works for the State and sees first hand the rampant abuse of people who continue to collect money they are not entitled to.

In my State they finally clamped down on those who were using their check to gamble in the casinos.

The Gates foundation is going to donate to women's contraception. The Gates are wealthy liberals. Charity is a voluntary thing, it should not be pushed on people. If any actor donates, good, but their earnings depend on each film, and Meryl is not too young, nor does she have a producer husband.
 
If the entitlements are not reformed eventually they will not be around for anyone. Neither party has ever wants to do what will be necessary in the end. I wish they would address it rather than push it down the road. I don't think there is a magic way out.
Both parties, sadly, are showing their lack of concern for their electorate. I was extremely disappointed with the way our democratic senators voted on the Klobuchar's bill. These were their 14 voices added to the GOP vote that killed the bill. For me it was a slap in the face as my senator, who I once waited to elect till 3 am in the city hall, voted "Nay". I think it taught me everything about politics.
 
The Gates foundation is going to donate to women's contraception. The Gates are wealthy liberals. Charity is a voluntary thing, it should not be pushed on people. If any actor donates, good, but their earnings depend on each film, and Meryl is not too young, nor does she have a producer husband.

Actually this is in response to previous discussions here where posters have inferred I was not very charitable because I am so against ObamaCare.

Or that other countries are willing to pay higher taxes so everyone benefits.

And my explanation was that my main concern is taking care of my family with limited funds.

So if Meryl cannot do it, it should be understandable why middle class people can not pay higher taxes or high premium costs so that others will be covered.
 
Can you imagine if all those liberals like Meryl Streep donated the proceeds of their movies where they make tens of millions of dollars. You know, the ones who are against the wall but live in gated communities with armed guards.

Entitlements are fine for those who really need it. My husband works for the State and sees first hand the rampant abuse of people who continue to collect money they are not entitled to.

In my State they finally clamped down on those who were using their check to gamble in the casinos.

It's pretty easy to find information about how Meryl Streep and many other liberal celebrities donate millions of dollars to a variety of causes.

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/...ove-meryl-streep-her-active-philanthropy.html

https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/meryl-streep
 
I don't know why you invoked Meryl in this conversation in the first place. Is the country supposed to rely on charity from liberal celebrities? How much is enough and who are you to determine that?
 
Yes, but then, no. Take the children of a so-called welfare mom - they are not to be blamed for being born into this world. Now school lunches program has been cut. For some, it may be the only meal. I have heard about a program here contributing so that they have hot meals in summer time. See, even charity falls on the shoulders of the middle class.
I would never blame the kids. I'm will always point my finger at the irresponsible parents. Why are they bringing babies into this world if they can't afford to support them? What happened to our traditional values?
 
Not sure about elsewhere, but in our schools, children are fed breakfast and lunch.

And the ones who go to after care, are fed dinner and given meals to take home for the weekend.

And I am sure this is not unique to our school system.
 
I would never blame the kids. I'm will always point my finger at the irresponsible parents. Why are they bringing babies into this world if they can't afford to support them? What happened to our traditional values?

Because every life is precious, DF. Until they're born and start leeching off the hardworking taxpayers.

Accidents happen. Rape happens. Abstinence isn't realistic. Birth control should be as close to free as possible, and abortion safe, legal, and as rare as possible. That's as good as it's going to get for either side.
 
Because every life is precious, DF. Until they're born and start leeching off the hardworking taxpayers.

Accidents happen. Rape happens. Abstinence isn't realistic. Birth control should be as close to free as possible, and abortion safe, legal, and as rare as possible. That's as good as it's going to get for either side.
Perhaps DF would be willing to take in a few of those babies in lieu of finding a job that supports his family?
 
Perhaps DF would be willing to take in a few of those babies in lieu of finding a job that supports his family?

That is what every hardworking man and women does - support his family.

DF has a right to be very proud of that.
 
I would never blame the kids. I'm will always point my finger at the irresponsible parents. Why are they bringing babies into this world if they can't afford to support them? What happened to our traditional values?

Uhhhh, because we don't have a one child limit here in the US? And by "traditional values" do you mean those that say don't educate children too much about sex because then they'll do it--make sure to emphasize that abstinence is best and expect everyone to follow through on that? I mean it's worked out SO WELL throughout history.
 
That is what every hardworking man and women does - support his family.

DF has a right to be very proud of that.
Oh Ruby! Always rushing in to tell people how it is, even if you have no idea.
 
Because every life is precious, DF. Until they're born and start leeching off the hardworking taxpayers.

Accidents happen. Rape happens. Abstinence isn't realistic. Birth control should be as close to free as possible, and abortion safe, legal, and as rare as possible. That's as good as it's going to get for either side.
If the liberals stop making excuses after excuses maybe then we will have less babies born into irresponsible families.
 
Perhaps DF would be willing to take in a few of those babies in lieu of finding a job that supports his family?
Why should I ??
scratchhead.gif
...I wasn't the one who had a climax when they were making these babies. My slogan ...you "F" you pay..:!:
 
I just think it's super funny when people who don't work and didn't vote have such strong opinions about people's work/life ethic and how they voted :wavey:
 
Uhhhh, because we don't have a one child limit here in the US? said Monarch

One is too many if you do not have the ability to support it.

No one is telling anyone how many children they should have as long as they are prepared to raise and support them.

But having a baby you cannot take care of and then another and another after that, whose fault is that?
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top