Five Myths About the GOP(that won't die)

[hwt 0]

Many Americans today are unhappy with the Democratic Party.
Yet according to a Gallup poll conducted in July 2010, Democrats were still ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters’ generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections.

Why? A big part of the reason is voter dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. And a major reason for that dissatisfaction is that over the years voters have been fed numerous lies by Democrats and the mainstream media to discredit the GOP.

Here are five of those lies:
as written by Richard Bernstein, a former life-long Democrat, and the author of "Duped America: How Democrats and the Mainstream Media Have Duped the American People and Are Harming Our Country"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/06/richard-bernstein-gop-myths-republican-democrat-party-obama-bush-mortgage/

[billvon 2,463]

Just to talk to one point -

==========
Democrats have always stood up for black Americans—and Republicans are either uncaring at best, or overt racists at worst.

Many Americans would be surprised to know that Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced conservative ideals.
==========

He may have indeed embraced some conservative ideals, but overall his positions would have horrified modern conservatives. A few of them:

The government should pay blacks $50 billion in reparations. "The money spent would be more than amply justified by the benefits that would accrue to the nation through a spectacular decline in school dropouts, family breakups, crime rates, illegitimacy, swollen relief rolls, rioting and other social evils."

He opposed optional wars, and thought that the US was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

He opposed military spending. "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

His "poor people's campaign" demanded massive increases in welfare and other aid to the poor. He called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power.

The GOP is radically opposed to these ideals. Trying to "ride the coattails" of MLK to garner support for the GOP, and trying to claim they were "on his side" is something of a joke.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The GOP is radically opposed to these ideals. Trying to "ride the coattails" of MLK to garner support for the GOP, and trying to claim they were "on his side" is something of a joke.

No shit and to wrap all conservative ideals into 1 mess and make them transcend time is just retarded. Even tho the Repub Party fiscally changed in the 1920's, the racial profile was somewhat up in teh air until cemented in the 1960's. Of ciourse they went more racist after that or at least their electorate went that way so did the party.

Funny to watch the Republican pundits squirm in denial.

[billvon 2,463]

You know, it could have been a good article about how in many cases both parties are to blame for the current mess we are in (which is true.) Unfortunately the article remains true to the FOX News bias and says things like:

"Republicans caused the mortgage crisis.. . . In reality it was the Democrats who caused the mortgage crisis."

"Republicans are the 'party of Wall Street, big business and special interest groups'. . . .it is the Democratic Party which has deep-rooted unholy alliances with special-interest groups."

In other words, the article is condemning the partisan hacks who blindly attack one party over the other - just like this article does. Indeed, one could make an argument that the public is sick to death of attitudes like this one, which may be why the GOP is still doing so poorly in the polls.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

1. The Bush administration lied about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War.

Two bipartisan investigations demanded by Democrats refute this myth. In 2004, the Robb-Silberman Report, along with a separate Senate Intelligence Committee report, both concluded that there was no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq.

I watched Meet the Press and then RNC Chair Ken Mehlman said congress saw the exact same intel that Bush did. Russert then said an independent investigation by the Washingtom Post revealed otherwise. Mehlman then said that Congress saw basically the same intel that Bush saw. Yea, love this BS w/o a citation of which reports they were.

Quote

2. Republicans caused the mortgage crisis.

In reality it was the Democrats who caused the mortgage crisis and stifled Republican efforts to prevent it.

First, Bill Clinton broadened the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), bypassing the Republican-led Congress and ordering the Treasury Department to rewrite the CRA rules to force banks to fulfill loan “quotas” in low income neighborhoods.

Eventually, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required by HUD to show that 55% of their mortgage purchases were to low and moderate income borrowers, and lending standards were lowered to meet those goals.

Intense competition caused by Fannie and Freddie’s increasing appetite for loans caused investment and commercial banks to compete for borrowers, and the looser lending standards eventually spread to higher-income and prime borrowers as well.

Then came Clinton’s most disastrous decision: he legalized the securitization of subprime mortgages that allowed the market to soar from $35 billion in risky loans in 1994 to $1 trillion by 2008, thus poisoning the entire mortgage industry.

Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of subprime mortgages. In both 2003 and 2005, they introduced legislation that would have required Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their investments in them. Both times their attempts were opposed by the Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, so the bills never made it to Senate floor.

So no mention of the low int rates? Hmmmm, the low rates caused the artifical appreciation, as borrowers could qualify for more with low rates. I wonder why the rate shad to be lowered? Oh yea, receipts were down with the tax rate. Yea, no mention of that.

Quote

3. Eight years of Republican deregulation caused the financial crisis.

Some myths die harder than others. This is certainly one of them. Financial services were not deregulated during the Bush administration.

The repeal of the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act in 1999, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same roof, was supported by the Clinton administration and signed into law by the president.

Moreover, that was not the cause of the financial crisis. The crisis was caused by banks and investment firms purchasing vast numbers of bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.

What contributed to such a high volume of purchases? In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Democrat Annette Nazareth, who ran the market regulation division at the time, unanimously adopted a rule change known as Basel II.

Adopted by all of the world’s central bankers, Basel II was an attempt to provide greater regulation of investment firms by more accurately evaluating the types of assets they held.

Unfortunately, AAA-rated mortgages were incorrectly considered to be some of the safest assets an institution could own. As a result, Basel II allowed investment banks to leverage their assets of mortgage-backed securities at a ratio as high as 30 to 1. Thus, although Basel II wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis, it certainly contributed to the size of it.

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-2-166

Altho I can't find any GWB deregulations, other than with employment, sitting back and being apathetic is a form off deregulation via watching a market in need of regulation go to hell. Kinda like a cop watching a rape; he becomes complicit.

I wonder why Graham-Leach-Bliliey wasn't directly mentioned? Could it be that those three stooges are all ultra-conservative Republicans? Yep, everythibng but the truth? A bill written by, sponsored by 3 hard-core Repubs and no mention.

Again, there would have likely been a mortgage mess of small size, but w/o the low int rates there would have been no massive nighmare, as the houses would foreclose and sell for approximately what was borrowed against them.

Quote

4. Republicans are the “party of Wall Street, big business and special interest groups.”

In the 2008 national election cycle, more campaign donations from the largest banks and Wall Street firms went to Democrats, not Republicans.

Ninety of the top one hundred corporate donors leaned Democratic, and nearly 75 percent of all hedge fund donations in that same period went to presidential candidate Obama.

Furthermore it is the Democratic Party which has deep-rooted unholy alliances with special-interest groups—labor unions, teachers unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, community organizations such as ACORN and welfare beneficiaries—that often places the interests of those groups ahead of what’s best for the country. Their alliance with trial lawyers, for example, is why tort reform, an effective way to lower health care costs, was not included in the health care bill.

I don't see supporting ev, but even if Wall Street did contribute more to D's, how does that make them the party of Wall Street? Again, no supporting ev.

A major reason why some Wall Streeters donated to Obama is due to the obvious election victory in Nov 08, these people saw teh writing and went with the obvious winner.

Show me how Wall Street investors differ from typical Repub COnservative values, tax cuts, etc.

Quote

5. Democrats have always stood up for black Americans—and Republicans are either uncaring at best, or overt racists at worst.

Many Americans would be surprised to know that Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced conservative ideals.

Moral conservative ideals you mean. As in anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, etc. Nice wadding up all values in one mess.

Quote

Yet King’s choice of political affinity made perfect sense: it was Republicans, not Democrats, who consistently fought for freedom and civil rights for blacks since their founding in 1854—as the anti-slavery party.

The parties were in transition as to their race positions. The Southern Yellow Dogs, now hard-core Republicans, have always been racist but were then Dems. This point is just dishonest.

Quote

In fact, the Democrats tried to filibuster and stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act from passing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated.

See, the Dems were the racist segregationists THEN, NOT NOW. This is what this lame-ass is referring to:

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.

So again, the Mississippi Senator would have canned the bill, but Senator Mansfield from Montana took the bill and had the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. This led to a fillibuster, but eventually did pass. So again, the Southern redneck trash tried to kill it, a northern Dem senator went against precedent and got it through.

Even against Southern redneck resistance, it was still passed by a far larger number of Dems than R's:

By party
The original House version:[10]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[11]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[10]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

And then regionally:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

So once again, more smoke/mirrors from your BS reference.

Quote

Republicans also established the NAACP and founded and financed all the earliest black schools and colleges.

http://naacp.com/about/history/

Founded in 1909, as Teddy Roosevelt was leaving office; teh R's were still an awesome party. The D's, as when Lincoln won, were still the racist pigs then. This is no news, nothing spectacular.

Quote

The fact that most Americans still believe these five myths is a stark reminder that voters can be manipulated by a mainstream media and a Democratic Party who believe “a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.”

No, maybe the voters aren't as stupid as originally thought. Maybe the voters understand that the parties have switched their ideologies, esp according to race relations.

Love all the claims and no support.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

You know, it could have been a good article about how in many cases both parties are to blame for the current mess we are in...

Agreed... However...

Quote

Unfortunately the article remains true to the FOX News bias...

As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You know, it could have been a good article about how in many cases both parties are to blame for the current mess we are in...

Agreed... However...

Quote

Unfortunately the article remains true to the FOX News bias...

As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

I see, your side can post the bias, scream if we do. I say that we all don't when relying on them for hard credibility. In fact, let's us make the arguments, rely on external source for data and otehr support. But neo-cons don't do that much, they ride the coattials of some pundit with an agenda.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Rather than wasting my time and having to put up with more personal attacks from you Lucky, what would YOU accept as a credible external source to show MSNBCs left bias?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Rather than wasting my time and having to put up with more personal attacks from you Lucky, what would YOU accept as a credible external source to show MSNBCs left bias?

Cry me a river, after you disparage an innocent little girl by calling her "ugly" due to your hate for her parents, now you've developed hurt feelings over nothing me telling you you should retract.

Does MSNBC have left bias? Slightly, no support is needed. As for factual references, I don;t care if people use sites that often biased, but when they then rely on the editorial from said site, it just gets stupid. For that matter, editorial form most sites is worthless, if I wanted to argue with some Libertarian PhD I would do so directly. Neo-cons look for someone with a degree or a website, post their BS and call it good. I like objecctive data and to draw my own conclusions, then banter that about, I realize most conservatives aren't that motivated.

[billvon 2,463]

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Hmmm... interesting... interesting.

Yes, yes, I find Chelsea Clinton unattractive and yes I have a strong distain for her parents.

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Oh, and while you're at it, could you take a momement to explain which definition of neo-con you prescribe to? You tend to throw the term around liberally and I'm just trying to keep up.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

So basically, we can agree that an un-biased news source doesn't exist?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hmmm... interesting... interesting.

Quote

Yes, yes, I find Chelsea Clinton unattractive and yes I have a strong distain for her parents.

And you called her "ugly" in a few diff ways and I said you should retract, you did and now feel I PA'd you. You've said nothing new here, so cry me a fucking river and/or go back to beating up little girls.

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either. Stay away from CNN, MSNBC, Cato, Heritage, FOX, Etc.

Quote

Oh, and while you're at it, could you take a momement to explain which definition of neo-con you prescribe to? You tend to throw the term around liberally and I'm just trying to keep up.

It was first coined in 1921 per my former research, I would imagine to describe the conservative movement from that of caring of peopel to that of caring of the rich; the GOP truned ugly in the 1920's as we all know.

More contemporarily it means garbage like fascist pig Ronnie for morphing from a Dem to an R as I have found. It seems that those who get slammed by labels tend to try to create confusion with the terms so as to dillute their meanings.

• Quote

[billvon 2,463]

>So basically, we can agree that an un-biased news source doesn't exist?

Every news source out there is biased to some degree. The better ones are less biased. Often it's useful to use a news source that has an "orthogonal" bias, like foreign news sources discussing US politics.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

So basically, we can agree that an un-biased news source doesn't exist?

I think they do or they are so mildly biased it isn't worth mentioning. Basically when they start to editorialize, esp hang their shingle on that they become biased.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,463]

>And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a
>bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

If you get to a point where it seems almost everyone is to the left, it may not be that they are really to the left - it may be that you are a little more right than you think you are.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

Has MSNBC ever shown a bias that isn't leftist?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Many Americans today are unhappy with the Democratic Party.
Yet according to a Gallup poll conducted in July 2010, Democrats were still ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters’ generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections.

Why? A big part of the reason is voter dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. And a major reason for that dissatisfaction is that over the years voters have been fed numerous lies by Democrats and the mainstream media to discredit the GOP.

No, it's because the GOP has yet to come up with a message, other that the accurate label as the party of no. Until they have something to offer, like Newt's Contract with America platform, they will only get a small portion of the disasitified vote. They're instead the party that lead us to 2008 and still have no clue what to do about it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a
>bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

If you get to a point where it seems almost everyone is to the left, it may not be that they are really to the left - it may be that you are a little more right than you think you are.

And if you get to a point where almost everything seems centrist (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary), it may be that you are a little more left than you think you are.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is:

CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC

LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc

RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc

You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a
>bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

If you get to a point where it seems almost everyone is to the left, it may not be that they are really to the left - it may be that you are a little more right than you think you are.

And if you get to a point where almost everything seems centrist (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary), it may be that you are a little more left than you think you are.

See, you show your RW bias here by not equally opposing Bill:

If you get to a point where it seems almost everyone is to the left, it may not be that they are really to the left - it may be that you are a little more right than you think you are.


He's goijng one extreme to the other, you're calling teh centrist a bunch of lefties. Mike, you're just obvious - with us or against us.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You can't use your majic sliding scale here

Awww...are you still sore because I called you out on using unadjusted numbers, AFTER you chided me about using them?

Or is this like when your post 'majic'ally changes from GDP to Real GDP while I'm in the midst of responding to it, and you pretend that you had written Real GDP all along?

Quote

just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

And just because Fox doesn't praise (I'm guessing that's what you meant) the LW doesn't make them RW.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a
>bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

If you get to a point where it seems almost everyone is to the left, it may not be that they are really to the left - it may be that you are a little more right than you think you are.

That is the same for ones own view
Including yours and your comments about Fox

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is:

CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC

LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc

RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc

You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here

CBS Cenrtist????

Now that is funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln