Republicans to Drop Measure Labeling Democrats 'Socialist'

Quote:

---

Republicans to Drop Measure Labeling Democrats 'Socialist'

Republicans to Drop Measure Labeling Democrats 'Socialist'
GOP Chairman Michael Steele had opposed the name-changing resolution, and other party leaders have called it "stupid" and "absurd."

AP

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

powered by BaynoteWASHINGTON -- Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.

Supporters of the resolution asking the Democratic Party to change its name instead agreed to accept language urging Democrats to "stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control."

The initial name-changing resolution had drawn criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Florida GOP Chairman James Greer called the idea "stupid" and Colorado Chairman Dick Wadhams called it "absurd." They said it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.

The Democratic National Committee said the proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."

Supporters dismissed the criticism Wednesday and said the publicity generated by the proposal was good for the GOP.

"It has generated the debate we had hoped for," said Indiana committeeman James Bopp. "It was an effort to educate the American people, and it was successful."

David Norcross, a committeeman from New Jersey, said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."

In a statement following the resolution's adoption, Steele said he was pleased the measure focused on "the Democrats' policies and their destructive effects on America's economic engine, rather than attempting to rename our opponents."

Henry Barbour, chairman of the RNC committee that handles resolutions, said the new language more closely reflects the sentiments of the full party and "helps unify our party."

At one point during informal discussions of the name change, some attending the meeting of state party leaders and other party officials said the proposed name might also include the label "nationalist." But Bopp said including "nationalist" was never proposed.

The RNC also approved resolutions honoring the late Republican congressman Jack Kemp, commending Republican members of Congress for opposing recent bailouts, and calling on Republicans to abandon local spending provisions known as earmarks.

The party's meeting this week was held as Republicans are trying to chart a new course after election losses in 2006 and 2008 that left them out of power in the White House, Congress and statehouses across the country.

Without a successor to former President George W. Bush, the party is in the midst of an intense debate over its identity and facing an emboldened Democratic Party that's grown larger and stronger under President Barack Obama's leadership.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

---

Thank God they dropped this because they had me worried. First Freedom Fries and now this? The GOP is BRUTAL!

:lmao

It looked especially stupid in light of the rising number of Americans who support socialist agendas.

When the economy gets bad, socialism starts looking good. When people lose jobs and health care and have to price private health insurance plans, socialized medicine starts looking more attractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

....socialized medicine starts looking more attractive.

---

Because the Federal Government delivers so much value for your hard-earned dollar, right?

What will we call that govt run health care plan?


Democracised Medicine?

"Federal Government delivers so much value"

Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Security all have lower overheads and deliver more service.

is why the health insurance industry is going to spend 100s of $Ms to kill Magik Negro's public health insurance option. They know they wouldn't be able to compete and would exposed as blood-sucking parasites inflating heatlh-care costs while delivering mininum health care.

is why dubya had to give the health-profit industry $50B subsidy in the last Medicare bill.

is why dubya made it illegal for US govt to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma the way Big Pharma must do in foreign countries.

Stupid, in part because the GOP establishment subscribes to socialism for the wealthy.

Use of public funds to cover the losses of large financial services companies = "free enterprise."

Use of public funds to provide free shit to the unwashed masses = 'dangerous Euro style fascist socialism.'

Got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

is why dubya had to give the health-profit industry $50B subsidy in the last Medicare bill.

---

Can you provide proof of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

is why dubya made it illegal for US govt to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma the way Big Pharma must do in foreign countries.

---

I agree the free market should prevail here. It surprises me that you do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

It looked especially stupid in light of the rising number of Americans who support socialist agendas.

When the economy gets bad, socialism starts looking good. When people lose jobs and health care and have to price private health insurance plans, socialized medicine starts looking more attractive.

---

For an ignorant weak americant who can't see the big picture.

Disgusting. :bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

For an ignorant weak americant who can't see the big picture.

Disgusting. :bang

---

I know. Stupid poor people should keep their sick kids home to prove capitalism works! I know if I didn't have coverage I know it is more imprtant for capitalism to succeed than my kid being covered for basic health care..

Quote:

---

David Norcross, a committeeman from New Jersey, said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."

---

A little transparent there, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Because the Federal Government delivers so much value for your hard-earned dollar, right?

---

Because the health insurance industry delivers so much value for your hard-earned dollar?

Elizabeth Edwards discussed how one year that out of every $700 spent in the US on health care, $1 went to pay the President of United Healthcare.

I would much prefer a system where my premiums go to a government system that is not created to make a profit rather than to the insurance industry that does everything to make money. I pay a ridiculous premium for a $5000 deductible policy from which I have never received one benefit just so I can have coverage for something catastrophic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I know. Stupid poor people should keep their sick kids home to prove capitalism works! I know if I didn't have coverage I know it is more imprtant for capitalism to succeed than my kid being covered for basic health care..

---

where to begin....where to begin....surely you'll take this the wrong way, but i'll make a blanket statement and say, we all make our own choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

Because the health insurance industry delivers so much value for your hard-earned dollar?

Elizabeth Edwards discussed how one year that out of every $700 spent in the US on health care, $1 went to pay the President of United Healthcare.

I would much prefer a system where my premiums go to a government system that is not created to make a profit rather than to the insurance industry that does everything to make money. I pay a ridiculous premium for a $5000 deductible policy from which I have never received one benefit just so I can have coverage for something catastrophic.

---

The only thing worse than relying on high quality services being provided for profit is to expect high quality services to be provided for no profit.

And, yes, paying for routine medical expenses with insurance doesn't help. Thank the tax code for that. It's not hard to see how consumers who pay a relatively small percentage of the true cost of the care they consume would result in ever increasing price inflation for medical goods and services.

We don't pay for the purchase of other vital goods and services with insurance. There's no reason that routine, small medical expenditures should be any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

where to begin....where to begin....surely you'll take this the wrong way, but i'll make a blanket statement and say, we all make our own choices.

---

Will this be the defense conservatives will be using against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Federal Government delivers so much value"

Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Security all have lower overheads and deliver more service.

---

:lmao Okay, stop right there...

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all bankrupt, riddled with fraud and abuse, and short-service everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

is why the health insurance industry is going to spend 100s of $Ms to kill Magik Negro's public health insurance option. They know they wouldn't be able to compete and would exposed as blood-sucking parasites inflating heatlh-care costs while delivering mininum health care.

---

No, because nationalized medicine will kill the incentive to innovate. It will ruin the prospect of every medical student of ever excelling in a career that once had endless promise. And, it will, in short order, run out of services for those who need it most.

You'll end up with long lines and interminable (and terminal) waits for necessary procedures. (See Britain and Canada).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Will this be the defense conservatives will be using against it?

---

I'm something of a conservative, but he's got a point, if the conservative talking heads keep refusing to deal with fact that workers in america are yearly being exculded from upward mobility,and access to repesentation in goverment for their concerns they will lose the nation to the idiocy of socialisim.Then both left and right will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

The only thing worse than relying on high quality services being provided for profit is to expect high quality services to be provided for no profit.

---

Cmon now, our military isn't that bad, is it? :D

Do you think mercenaries would do a better job?

While I agree with you in many aspects, health care is one of the 'essentials' to any developed nation. We accept non-profit police and fire depts; I don't see a huge difference with the essential service provided by healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Cmon now, our military isn't that bad, is it? :D

Do you think mercenaries would do a better job?

While I agree with you in many aspects, health care is one of the 'essentials' to any developed nation. We accept non-profit police and fire depts; I don't see a huge difference with the essential service provided by healthcare.

---

Food and clothing are essential. We should pay for those with insurance as well. Government provided insurance would surely be optimal.

We spend at least half a tril a year on national defense, yet it couldn't stop an attack on the homeland no more sophisticated than one using $5 boxcutters. Is our national defense really that effective? And at least the logic for national defense is that otherwise it would not be provided. The problem with health care services is the government intervention in the marketplace, which exists to make us think its doing some good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

We spend at least half a tril a year on national defense, yet it couldn't stop an attack on the homeland no more sophisticated than one using $5 boxcutters. Is our national defense really that effective? And at least the logic for national defense is that otherwise it would not be provided. The problem with health care services is the government intervention in the marketplace, which exists to make us think its doing some good.

---

I'm not arguing about the size of the defense budget; merely the argument that a for-profit entity can provide better services than a government/non-profit entity can.

The only reason healthcare is not considered in the same emergency services section as fire and police is because if someone gets sick, it usually only affects that one person, whereas fire can spread and police handle things that tend to disturb a neighborhood in general.

Food and clothing are essential to a PERSON; notsomuch as a society. Access to food is essential to a society, as a people without food will soon turn to anarchy, but one person's food/shelter only affects that one person.

Healthcare, on the other hand, can affect many more. People with diseases can spread these throughout a community. As well, unless hospitals were to turn down patients that couldn't pay, then the costs are carried over to society; costs that would be better managed if most problems were caught/solved at an earlier stage.

Universal health care seems to be one solution to the two problems above.

Also, security is a limiting measure at best. Nearly any security can be bypassed given the proper knowledge/motivation. The problem is exacerbated the larger the system has to be.

Airline security is a joke.

How about we kill those with infectious diseases, so that society doesn't bear those costs? After all, it's not the person that matters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Also, security is a limiting measure at best. Nearly any security can be bypassed given the proper knowledge/motivation. The problem is exacerbated the larger the system has to be.

Airline security is a joke.

---

As is our national "security." So we can obliterate the army of Iraq. I sleep much better at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

How about we kill those with infectious diseases, so that society doesn't bear those costs? After all, it's not the person that matters...

---

Feel free to run on that platform. ;)

Additionally, as a technical matter, that probably wouldn't work well... not without some sort of sanitation. Dead bodies aren't very conducive to a healthy society :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

As is our national "security." So we can obliterate the army of Iraq. I sleep much better at night.

---

Technically, we could obliterate nearly any army. Or country for that matter. Sure it's overkill, but you must agree that it does prevent CLASSIC warfare from happening (ie. a government declaring war on us).

However, our military/defense cant' do a whole lot right now about terrorists or rogue actors, which have come about due to our classic warfare superiority.

It's the reason why the army seems to be slowly transitioning into a quasi-police force. Given the people they've put in charge of CentCom and other areas, I don't see that changing anytime soon. However, those transitions will take time.

What are your expectations for a national defense, Marcus? Do you think we're covering your expectations, but at a much-too-costly/exaggerated rate?

I would expect that our national defense protect us from those whom the state manages to piss off enough that they plan suicide attacks against us. Unless, of course, you believe that they do so because we're "us."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

I would expect that our national defense protect us from those whom the state manages to piss off enough that they plan suicide attacks against us. Unless, of course, you believe that they do so because we're "us."

---

What did we do to piss them off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

I would expect that our national defense protect us from those whom the state manages to piss off enough that they plan suicide attacks against us. Unless, of course, you believe that they do so because we're "us."

---

Honestly, if someone really wanted to perform a suicide attack, then they could. Security will not catch EVERY plot. It's just not going to happen. If you think they will, then you're having an unrealistic view of our security. :)

Now, I do agree that we spend too much on security, and much of our security is ineffective. But it's unrealistic to think that we'll stop every plot, much as it is unrealistic to think that police will be able to apprehend every crook, or that juries will make sure to acquit every innocent person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What did we do to piss them off?

---

Mostly, placing bases in their countries. Not saying whether it's justified or not, but that tends to piss them off.

Also, our laidback culture where we allow women to show their faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Mostly, placing bases in their countries. Not saying whether it's justified or not, but that tends to piss them off.

---

At the request, behest, or agreement of the host nation and for perfectly legitimate national security reasons.

So, we should try to pacify a group over an illegitimate grievance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Also, our laidback culture where we allow women to show their faces.

---

A perfectly legitimate grievance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

At the request, behest, or agreement of the host nation and for perfectly legitimate national security reasons.

So, we should try to pacify a group over an illegitimate grievance?

---

Like I said, not saying it's legitimate. There are many people within a country that don't agree with what their government does though, however. Wouldn't you agree?

I mean, if the President said that France could build a base in Tennessee, I doubt many people would like that. I don't know if any of them would take up suicide bombing, but I doubt they'd be pleased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Honestly, if someone really wanted to perform a suicide attack, then they could. Security will not catch EVERY plot. It's just not going to happen. If you think they will, then you're having an unrealistic view of our security. :)

Now, I do agree that we spend too much on security, and much of our security is ineffective. But it's unrealistic to think that we'll stop every plot, much as it is unrealistic to think that police will be able to apprehend every crook, or that juries will make sure to acquit every innocent person.

---

I disagree. I think the NSA surveilllance programs were designed to identify just such threats.

Terrorists aren't made in a vaccuum. They need materials, support, money, and logistical expertise.

I think so long as Obama continues the anti-terrorism programs put in place by the Bush administration, it'll be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Like I said, not saying it's legitimate. There are many people within a country that don't agree with what their government does though, however. Wouldn't you agree?

---

Sure, but, because it's not legitimate, it's also not reasonable to suggest we could have done anything differently.

I think exporting our culture to the Middle East -- even in the absence of a military presence -- was just as provocative to these fanatics. But, again, we opened our shores to everyone and many middle easterners came here to be educated.

They took back our culture and friendships - that developed into associations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I mean, if the President said that France could build a base in Tennessee, I doubt many people would like that. I don't know if any of them would take up suicide bombing, but I doubt they'd be pleased.

---

We already base troops from all over the world in places all over the country. For training, joint exercises, security of their own assets, U.N. involvement, etc...

And, your right, we don't take up suicide bombing over it.

The bottom line is this; these Islamic extremists don't like that civilization has encroached into their 13th century paradise and shown women they are treated as equals in other parts of the world, shown individuals that personal liberty exists outside of what Sharia allows, and demonstrated the government doesn't have to be fascist to be functional....and, goddamnit, they don't like it.

That's why they attack. And, why do they attack America particularly? Well, we're the Great Satan. All the other Western Cultures emulate us and, by the looks of it, Britain, France, Germany (not so much), and the other Europeon countries are proving to be soft targets for Dhimmitude.

If they can get us to capitulate, the rest of the planet will be a cake walk...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I disagree. I think the NSA surveilllance programs were designed to identify just such threats.

Terrorists aren't made in a vaccuum. They need materials, support, money, and logistical expertise.

I think so long as Obama continues the anti-terrorism programs put in place by the Bush administration, it'll be effective.

---

Agreed. Sure, the program will catch terrorists. However, do you know how much cost goes into running such a system? First, you have to have deep packet inspection at multiple points. Then, you have to have analysts to determine what's useful and what's throwaway. Then you also have to deal with storage, security and proper handling of data, as well as dealing with the hazards of granting access to read emails of normal citizens.

Do you know how easily computer admins can abuse their power? Especially in something that gets as large as government funded entities do?

Conservatives are against bigger government, and they're against abuse of power, and they're against invasion of privacy, right?

They should be against this then too. In theory, the system would be great if we didn't have finite resources and manpower. However, this being the real world, we do. I'd rather those resources go to finding better informants and tracking down clues, than spreading a ridiculously wide net and hoping to pick up a needle in a haystack.

Computers are great, but they can't replace humans yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Sure, but, because it's not legitimate, it's also not reasonable to suggest we could have done anything differently.

I think exporting our culture to the Middle East -- even in the absence of a military presence -- was just as provocative to these fanatics. But, again, we opened our shores to everyone and many middle easterners came here to be educated.

They took back our culture and friendships - that developed into associations.

---

Agreed... it's not our fault our culture rocks. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

We already base troops from all over the world in places all over the country. For training, joint exercises, security of their own assets, U.N. involvement, etc...

And, your right, we don't take up suicide bombing over it.

---

Yes, but my point is that, by far, America places more bases in foreign countries. Just because those governments agree doesn't mean its citizens necessarily will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The bottom line is this; these Islamic extremists don't like that civilization has encroached into their 13th century paradise and shown women they are treated as equals in other parts of the world, shown individuals that personal liberty exists outside of what Sharia allows, and demonstrated the government doesn't have to be fascist to be functional....and, goddamnit, they don't like it.

---

Agree 100%. However, we differ on the solution. I'm totally fine with letting them have their back-assward way, and let the Shiites and Sunnis all kill themselves off if they wish. The amount of people we've lost in the war against them has been greater than the initial attack, which was initiated by someone who we haven't even caught yet. Of course you can't capture and put to justice the people who did it, so you go after the terrorist ring. But I'd go after them subtlely, rather than take up a big mallet and whack it down on Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That's why they attack. And, why do they attack America particularly? Well, we're the Great Satan. All the other Western Cultures emulate us and, by the looks of it, Britain, France, Germany (not so much), and the other Europeon countries are proving to be soft targets for Dhimmitude.

If they can get us to capitulate, the rest of the planet will be a cake walk...

---

I think the European countries are having issues because A) they're closer than us, so it's easier for Muslims to share their lifestyle and B) they're not "Americans". I don't think we need to take out a huge number of Shias/Sunnis in order to stay "American". But maybe I'm just more optimistic about it.

I'm all for taking down scumbags. But I'd rather we do it the silent ops way than the invade and take over forever way.

It probably has something to do with supporting asshole tyrants in those countries over the years, as well as the enlarged military presence. And, yes, some of those fuckers are crazy. So it'd probably not be worth the trouble to stir them up such that they sit around all day in their huts thinking about ways to kill the average Joe and Josephine who'd prefer to do nothing other than enlarge their asses on good ol' fashioned American fast food and watch season four of the latest hit reality TV show about other people who have fattened their asses on good ol' fashioned American fast food.

Isn't socialist just simpler and easier to say than government-sponsored and government-controlled?

If the GOP really wanted to make Americans fearful and make the Democratic party look bad...they could have pushed for the Democrats to rename themselves as something really horrible...they could have picked a name so awful that nobody would even vote for them....

I think I got it...the Democrats should rename themselves...The Republican Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

It probably has something to do with supporting asshole tyrants in those countries over the years, as well as the enlarged military presence. And, yes, some of those fuckers are crazy. So it'd probably not be worth the trouble to stir them up such that they sit around all day in their huts thinking about ways to kill the average Joe and Josephine who'd prefer to do nothing other than enlarge their asses on good ol' fashioned American fast food and watch season four of the latest hit reality TV show about other people who have fattened their asses on good ol' fashioned American fast food.

---

so those upper middle class saudi highjackers were hut dwellers, not only are you bigoted about arabs, but you're ignorant as well about them.

Why does idiocy come easy for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

so those upper middle class saudi highjackers were hut dwellers, not only are you bigoted about arabs, but you're ignorant as well about them.

Why does idiocy come easy for you?

---

Oh, boo hoo. I'm bigoted about everybody. Any civilization which is perpetually stuck in medieval times doesn't deserve any respect. Of course, the treatment of women and disregard for basic human liberties fits right in well with your ignorant view of conservatism in this country. Fealty to the Bush/Cheney administration is not conservatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Oh, boo hoo. I'm bigoted about everybody. Any civilization which is perpetually stuck in medieval times doesn't deserve any respect. Of course, the treatment of women and disregard for basic human liberties fits right in well with your ignorant view of conservatism in this country. Fealty to the Bush/Cheney administration is not conservatism.

---

How bout this, it's not your slight bigotry, it's more of your ignorance on this whole matter. The saudi hijackers were upper middle class well educated men, that's a fact along with your lack of understanding.

second, i don't see conservatives here wanting to bring back no child left behind, temp work visa programs, or Medicare part d.103004 whatever.. but we are defending tatics that were used to protect this country because we believe them to be effective and within the right of the country to these things.

When Cheney stands for what's right, i don't give a damn about poll numbers or hatred from the opposition i'll support what he says. I don't pick what side of the issue to fall because of the November elections. Public oppinion is too shifty to base your beliefs on those things Marcus, so spare me the generalizations, and quit trying to be liked around here.

Quote:

---

Republicans to Drop Measure Labeling Democrats 'Socialist'

---

First off, I think the whole idea of the republicans wanting to call the democrats, socialists, is laughable. Not because it's not true, but because so many republicans are too!

I agree the democrats are a party of socialists...

Now I had to jump in on this exchange...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

How bout this, it's not your slight bigotry, it's more of your ignorance on this whole matter. The saudi hijackers were upper middle class well educated men, that's a fact along with your lack of understanding.

---

Was it there own money I wonder, or money to live on while planning and waiting? Even if they earned a comfortable living, it was their belief rather than income that causes terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

second, i don't see conservatives here wanting to bring back no child left behind

---

Conservatives want to return the schools to local control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

, temp work visa programs

---

No, nothing wrong with these programs. We are just against illegal work programs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

, or Medicare part d.103004 whatever

---

I cannot speak for all conservatives here, because it is a form of socialism. However, I believe most have no problem helping the elderly and disabled in such ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

.. but we are defending tatics that were used to protect this country because we believe them to be effective and within the right of the country to these things.

---

Yes, your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

When Cheney stands for what's right, i don't give a damn about poll numbers or hatred from the opposition i'll support what he says. I don't pick what side of the issue to fall because of the November elections. Public oppinion is too shifty to base your beliefs on those things Marcus, so spare me the generalizations, and quit trying to be liked around here.

---

I haven't seen him stand for wrong ideals. Maybe yours are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

How bout this, it's not your slight bigotry, it's more of your ignorance on this whole matter. The saudi hijackers were upper middle class well educated men, that's a fact along with your lack of understanding.

---

...who subscribe to a Medieval view of human life. Duh.

Quote:

---

When Cheney stands for what's right, i don't give a damn about poll numbers or hatred from the opposition i'll support what he says. I don't pick what side of the issue to fall because of the November elections. Public oppinion is too shifty to base your beliefs on those things Marcus, so spare me the generalizations, and quit trying to be liked around here.

---

Yawn. I don't worry about being liked on the internets, unlike your coconut self.