The Republican Party Over The Past 35 Years
 

Can any of you list the positive Republican Party contributions to the United States over the past 35 years?

1979 to 2014

List all that you have - I'm really curious....

* and please don't redirect the question

Bill Clinton.. with out Bush Sr's fuck ups his first term we likely would of never had Bill Clinton as president.

I can't wait until you finally get the one party state that you wish for. It will be interesting to see then who you blame things on then and who you take your complaints to.

No one wants a single party America, what we want is a two or three party America where the parties actually do something. You can't actually look at the Democratic party and say they don't do anything. You might not like what they do, but they do try to do their jobs.

You can however look at the Republican party and say they aren't doing their jobs. Just because the Right doesn't agree with what Obama or the left is doing, it doesn't mean they can just do nothing.

If they want to show that Obama and the left are doing it wrong, then they should do it better.. Instead they sit around wasting everyone's time & money doing nothing.

Most people on the left are increasingly acting like they want a one party America. You can see it in the vitriol they have toward others who don't think like them, in the complete lack of tolerance for those with different viewpoints and beliefs and in the way they blame everybody but themselves for every problem under the sun. The demands they have for conformity of thought is the first step down the slippery slope towards authoritarianism.

I agree that the system you have there now is essentially dysfunctional and you really do need at least a three party system.

this, very very much.

The telltale sign is they offer no solutions. They simply point at republican party and claim wrong/bad while looking at the dems and saying right/good.

This thread is a textbook example. It's a loaded question, if no one answers, the OP can claim a win, if anyone attempts to even suggest that anything the repubs have done in the last 35 years was positive, the OP and his ilk can and will point to a single person, place or thing and claim no, that was not good.

It's quite odd to hear someone say this that supports a party of intolerance and in ability to compromise. I mean really do you even read what you said and look at the Republican party for the last 10 years or longer?

The Republican party is the party of intolerance, bigotry and no compromise.

No I said the Democratic party at least tries. I didn't say they were good or that you had to like it. I said they at least try to do their job. The Republicans are not trying to do their job.

Notice how the Senate led by Democrats has actually passed bills? What has the House whom is led by the Republican party passed?

the science is settled.

democrats have globbed onto this phrase and use it with authority to defend their group thinking on global warming.

if that's not intolerance and no compromise, nothing is.

science is never settled, that's the damn point of science.

Since obama was elected, we've had the least productive congress in the history of the USA

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/201...oductivity.png

Well, when you paint with strokes as broad as that I can see where the problems begin. When those that continuously claim the moral, ethical and intellectual high-ground write everyone else off as fundamentally flawed where is there room to find common cause?

So everyone in the world that understands what global warming is, is a Democrat? You make it sound as if this is only a US debate and the rest of the world doesn't also agree there is man made global warming.

edit.. actually it is only a US debate because the rest of the world understands what Global Climate change is real..

you're the one that expanded my comment to the globe, not me. The fact that dems are a subset of a bigger group that goosesteps in line with global warming alarmists is besides the point, which is still valid- dems are using that flawed logic and it's a perfect example of intolerance, group thinking, and no compromise.

So you agree with me that the current Congress is pretty fucking bad and incapable of doing their jobs?

Funny no one can come up with one good thing republicans have done for the country in the past 35 years. :1orglaugh

no, you agree with me on that. I've had that view for quite a while now, I can't recollect the last time I thought the problem was dems or repubs.

It's called Global Warming or Global Climate change for a reason. It doesn't just happen in the US, so why would you think the rest of the world's thought shouldn't matter?

where did I say that? I never stated that.

This convo is re: america's political system, to highlight the fact that the dems are no better than republicans when it comes to group thinking, intolerance and no compromise, I used the fact that dems use the phrase the science is settled,

certainly you can see the danger in embracing that line of thought?

They dont even have anything on their own fucking website. http://www.gop.com/our-party/our-history/

:1orglaugh

not that anyone of you cares (i know, i know) but over here most republican politicians come across as a bunch of whiny lunatics

and once you have someone that makes sense - like Jon Huntsman - he gets crucified by his own party for not being radical right wing enough

Well for most of the world and most of the scientist on this planet the science is settled. It's only a minority mostly among the Republican party whom seem to think Global Warming is because of cow farts..

So is everyone else in the world intolerant or is the right simply wrong?

It's funny that around the world pretty much every major scientific community is in agreement that man has contributed to global warming..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_opinion2.png

Meanwhile almost all Republican politicians seem to know better and if you disagree with politicians, you are intolerant. I guess it's all Al Gore's fault...

the democratic site lists obamacare as it's only contribution in 50 years.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

http://www.democrats.org/about/our_history

it's complete waste of time and energy to discuss things with people who think science is settled (on anything), but especially when it comes to climate.

comeon, crockett. Certainly you have to see the dangers of such a position.

I'll ask you directly- do you or don't you see the perils of such thinking as the science is settled?

Democrat fanboys are not the brightest bunch.

I don't really know of anything that any Republican Pres. in the last 35 years did that wasn't 100% aimed at helping his cronies make money and amass power.

Possibly some "good" may have accidentally happened for the average person as a result. But it was strictly a happy by-product of the real goal.

Sadly, I cannot say any different for any Democrat Pres. (Clinton or Obama), though Bill is my favorite "modern day" President because he's so freakin' smart and able to get the "other side" to work with him.

EDIT: Now if you take EX President's into account...the Jimmy Carter has far and above done more "good" in this world than all of the other ones combined.

crockett, I'm old enough to remember the late 1970's/early 1980's when the same group of scientists said the "science is settled" and we were going into an "Ice Age".

I also saw on Bill Maher's show a scientist that he brought on specifically to cheerlead for global warming...but the guy turned the other way. He came out and said that new data showed that the ocean was absorbing the carbon dioxide and all of the computer generated forecasts were now completely wrong.

Also keep in mind that for most of mankind's history the "science was settled" that the Earth was flat, the sun and stars revolved around the Earth, etc., etc.

The data has changed on "climate change".
Problem is...too many people jumped in with a lot of money at stake. They don't want to hear about it.

Just keep an open mind, and keep up with current data. You and I are not scientists, but we can at least try to stay as informed as possible (unless either of us has a stake in oil or "green energy"...then we are damn sure gonna be biased lol)

Science is almost never settled, what I said was almost all scientist around the world think that man has an effect on the climate. It's only a small group whom are greatly related to the political right whom think other wise.

So do you believe in Evolution? Do you think science has put forward enough evidence to prove evolution or do you think the creationism theory has merit? IE do you think the Earth is only 6 thousand years old and that Jesus walked at the same time as dinosaurs?

Are you talking about Paul Watson or Bob Lutz or someone else.

Robbie I'm not saying there can be no doubt, but when the majority of scientist around the world almost all agree on something, I'm going to take their word on it before some politician's whom gets campaign contributions from big oil.

Skepticism can be good, but so can common sense.. Which brings me to the point, of how can you trust a politician's view point to be using common sense when the same politicians defend creationism and disregard evolution?

I think at that point I have to use scientific theory and common sense judgement that leads me to the conclusion that a political figure whom is not a scientist and agrees with creationism while disagreeing with global warming likely isn't to be looked to for his opinion on scientific thoughts as he essentially disagrees with what science has said.

You can not compare because:
1. There are different levels of right.
2. Even if a party name themselves as republican in some country it does not mean that it is on the same level as US republicans.

I appreciate your reply.

creationism isn't science, it's a belief system, so I don't think it applies here.

I can't remember... it was a few months ago. And Bill had him out as the beginning "interview" before he went to the panel.

And Bill was kind of shocked when the guy told him that he had "good news" and that the Earth (the ocean specifically) was adapting and absorbing the carbon. He said that this was something that the computer models hadn't taken into account which meant the data they had was flawed.

Common sense tells me that when a volcano can erupt (like the one in Iceland a few years ago) and put out more "bad" stuff into the atmosphere in a few weeks than mankind has ever done...then the Earth must have ways to adapt.

The whole "Man" is changing the entire Earth argument seems kind of egotistical on mankind's part.

Reality is...a few earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. can humble mankind in a quick hurry.

And as I've said before...IF it's REALLY mankind doing this...Then WHY didn't the President DO something? Why didn't Clinton? Why didn't Bush? Why didn't Obama?

Bush and Obama handed out trillions of dollars to "save" some big banks and companies.

Why didn't they take part of that money, and have the govt. pay to put solar panels on every home and business in the United States? That would have been something that would have actually created jobs in the "green energy" sector as opposed to just giving it to crooks running companies like Solyndra.

Solyndra didn't have to go bankrupt. Instead of handing them hundreds of millions of dollars for NOTHING...they could have been handed a govt. contract to put solar panels on every building in the United States.

Now THAT would have created jobs and helped the environment.

See what I'm saying?

Whenever a threat (like WW2 for instance) faced our country...our govt. mobilized against it.
But it's not happening.

Pres. Obama COULD have directed that money towards putting solar power on every building in the U.S. , but he was too busy funneling it to make his cronies richer.

That alone tells me that the science is NOT "settled".

Money is worthless if everybody on Earth is dead. So apparently, even Pres. Obama doesn't really believe it...or he would have DONE something that first 2 years when he had absolute power.

But the only thing he did was hand money to his cronies. Just like Bush.

Let me know when the govt. mobilizes to actually DO something other than talk. Then I'll believe it. Until then...it's just another "scary" thing to make money.

It's a belief system that the Right has fought to get taught in schools and have done so successfully. In their minds it "IS" science hence the reason that if they support it as a science how can their judgment on actual science related topics be trusted?

Really you know it as well as I do that there is no "real" argument among the scientific community about man having an effect on global warming. It's a argument being waged by political figures from the right wing.

Anything can of course be proven wrong, who knows maybe Jesus did ride with dinosaurs, however at some point you have to agree with simple logic and work with the best information you have at that time.

The information we have at this time, shows that we are having an affect ad we should try to stop it. Perhaps maybe in time that information will be dis-proven or further proven to be right. The question is, is the little evidence that doesn't support it worth the risk of doing nothing if the scientist are right?

i think you misunderstood me - i was talking about the perception of US republican politicians

The first line I quoted of you: Answer: I don't think anyone who believes in fairytales is thinking straight. And that would include EVERY politician who stands up and makes speeches about their "faith". I believe most politicians are lying through their teeth when they talk about "God". No way that a guy like Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton, or Bush, or the vast majority of politicians (not counting Bachman and Palin) actually believe any of that Christian superstitious nonsense.
If Pres. Obama really believes in "God" and "Jesus", etc., etc. he would be a moron. And he isn't.

On your second thing I quoted...yes there is a real "argument" in the "scientific community" as to what is happening as far as "global warming".
I mentioned it earlier about a scientist on Bill Maher's show.
The computer generated models are FLAWED because the Earth (the ocean in specific) is adapting to increased carbon and absorbing it.
You are making the same mistake that was made in the 1970's when those very same scientists all agreed we were going to have a new Ice Age.

None of this has anything to do with the dangers of people in authority discounting critical thinking by waving it off with a "the science is settled" attitude.

Nevertheless, the politicization of the science is only made worse with such statements.

Politics aside, I took steps years ago to reduce my carbon footprint/pollution output- I moved to adaptive reuse living, car sharing, several more steps I took to change my behavior, regardless of politics and politicians. My point in saying that is by focusing on the politics of it all and using terms like settled, distracts from what needs to be done- more people need to change their behavior, not just knock knock that the science is settled. We can disagree and still change behavior.

that's how our political system is supposed to work too.

:1orglaugh

I am so tired of people using the term "Right" or "right-wing" as a way to denigrate and categorize large groups of people. Nothing in this world is so simple and black and white. If it were then I could reasonably conclude, based on the assumption that you are "left wing", that your mentality is the same as Fidel Castro and Nicolas Maduro since they are both left wing.

To demonstrate the point further there is stuff like this:

The Liberals' War on Science

So quit it with the "right-wing" creationism crap.

The computer models are flawed also in large part because they make the assumption that man-made emissions of CO2 are a major driver of climate change.

Not only are the models flawed from the outset but they have also proven to be wrong even over the short term. If they are wrong now why should we believe that they will be right 50 or 100 years from now?

the very definition of bigotry :2 cents:

Is there anyone else but the Religious Right whom is pushing for creationism as a political movement? I'm sorry you don't like the term right, but as someone on the left, I get called liberal all the time.. You act as if everything is one sided. Most of the people from the right use liberal as if it were a dirty word, so why is that different?

You may not like the political environment of what the GOP has become, but it has been taken over by the fringes. The tea party is way off in right field as is the Religious Right. There are very few moderates left with in the Republican Party, those whom are stay quiet about it so they don't face the brunt of political attacks ad funded by the Tea Party and their Kock brothers backers..

When you say left wing it just doesn't ring the same as the right wing, that is because the left has not gone off the deep end. Sure there are of course radicals on every side of the fence, but on the right they have become the most powerful groups. I'm sorry that lumping them in with you makes you feel bad, but maybe everyone that supports the GOP should look in the mirror and ask do you really want to be associated with the Religious Right and the Tea Party?

You are a complete fucking idiot.

Hello! How's it going?

Man, if everything were as simple as categorizing huge segments of the population using only a couple of catch-phrases and labels. Here, let me take a stab at it:

The Christian Left Welcomes You

So now there is a "religious left" too. So what is the point in constantly calling out the so called "religious right"?

Tea party? How about the OWS movement?

Both sides have their "undesirables". What party do you think the marxists and communists vote for? Do you really want to be associated with communists and marxists? They are the left wing extremists pulling your party further and further to the left. The problem is that the left keeps moving the goalposts of where the political centre is so that centrists look like extreme right wingers to them now. I am a complete centrist but some people on the left call me an "extreme right winger".

And yes the left has completely gone off the deep end. You say the most powerful groups are on the right but that's just not true. Leftists are running the entire US education system from elementary school right through to university. Year after year they are churning out more and more mindless, indoctrinated drones that are eventually going to give you the one party solution that everyone on the left has wet dreams about. Then the real problems will begin.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Democrats need Republicans so the country doesn't become a pussy.

Republicans need Democrats so we don't invade countries for no reason.