"DeFund" The Republican Party

Their policies have forced thousands of families on to the streets;
They have been involved in election fraud on a national and even international scale;
They have given contracts to war criminal contractors;
They have filled the prison system for profit;
They have caused the death of millions of Americans by refusing to do anything about health care over the last 30 years, a period of time where they held power for far longer than the Democratic Party;
They caused illegal wars;
They encouraged drugs rings in Latin America;
They spied on American citizens;
They have encouraged and used prostitutes.

The list of Republican goes on and on.

lol, glad to see you've got such a good handle on how things REALLY went down there, "basher"


"illegal wars"?


considering the supposed casus belli's FOR ~~~~ WWI, Korea, or Vietnam, i THINK you have some research to do before going down that road, sir


as TO the "period of time where they held power for far longer than the Democratic Party"?


care to NAME the time that YOU think the GOP had nearly the "lock" on things that the Dems enjoyed in the '30's, the 60's, '76-80, or even as recently as '92-94, bud?


and "they" didn't do much about health care, EITHER, did they?

:popcorn: i think you would like baloney on yours.

in a bar conversation but not enough to understand reality.

clearly you went to the glenn beck school of history, so i see no point in engaging you, except to ridicule you :hi:

The Eagles won the equivalent of the Superbowl in 1960. I wasn't alive to see it nor do I know a single player on the Team, but I guess since the Eagles are my favorite football team I should be happy about that victory.

In the same breath in the 70s they were horrible. I guess I should be ashamed of how awful they were than.

i'd trade gas lines for iran contra and the murderous school of the americas regimes.

I only can rationalize the 90s and 00's I was a child in the 80s

starting with the election of ronald reagan in 1980. almost overnight, you could feel the mood of the country change. it was like what we are seeing with the teabaggers and birthers, but on a much larger scale, because many democrats also drank reagan's kool-aid. overnight, we became a much crueler, much more selfish and hateful nation. i am so glad i lived through it.

..... at least in your own mind, eh? :wow:

:shrug:

You really can't tell much from a political party's history from 40-50 years ago from where they are now.

Pre-civil rights movement and Richard Nixon's second Presidential run the Democratic and Republican parties were two very different animals.

In 1968 as a reaction to Johnson's adoption of de-segregation policies the South shifted more and more to the Republican party, while the north shifted more and more to the Democratic Party to a point where we have a map by party id that looks the exact opposite of what the map looked like post-civil war.

LA and WV voted GOP in the last two election cycle.

A southern democrat and a northern democrat are different animals as are a northern republican and a southern republican.

The democratic party began desegregation under Harry Truman if you want to get technical since Harry Truman desegregated the US Military.

But what the party did when most of our leaders were in diapers or not born doesn't matter.

Florida and North Carolina have a lot of Carpet Baggers sir. There has been a large migration of Yankee's into those said states.

Trying to say your party did this or your party did that means nothing.

Individuals did things. The party did nothing. The Republican Party did not invade Iraq, the US leadership which had a President nominated by the Republican Party made that order.

Honestly the GOP of 1930s would be horrified by such actions.

Trying to say a democrat in 2009 is responsible for Vietnam is ridiculous because the leadership of that era are either dead or in nursing homes.

... problem IS, he never actually got AROUND to IMPLEMENTING it, sir


that was left to Eisenhower

yes, FL and NC DO have a lot of migrated Northerners ~~~~ and THAT, it's my firm belief, goes much FURTHER to explain the shift TO a multi-party South, than what Johnson opined "would do it"


now, the point REMAINS, that all those "good ol' boy DEMOCRATS" down in WV or LA STILL didn't support the candidate of their own party THIS time, as they had in 2000 or 2004, sir


the "most Republican" states voted at SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER levels for Barack Obama than they had for either Gore or Kerry

UT and WY at 9% higher, CO and SD at 8% higher thsn Kerry, and CO at 13% higher than Gore

AK at 4% higher (even WITH a native "son" running on the other side of the ticket) at 4% higher than Kerry, and 11% higher than Gore

NE at 9% higher than either the two earlier D candidates

(seeing a pattern here yet?)

in fact, OF the 9 Republican-majority states, they collectively averaged 6% higher for Obama than for kerry, and 8%+ than for Gore


while the "most Democratic" states supported him at BARELY the same level (and, as noted in two instances, at LOWER) as they "went for" Gore or Kerry

those cumulative averages were 4% better than for Kerry, and but 3% better than Gore

and yeah, i know all ABOUT "reversion to norm", lol

.... and statistically, the mythos of "rampant Republican racism" just does NOT hold much water, folks

sorry


you can't just "disallow" those people in places like LA and WV as "not REAL Democrats" quite so easily, i'm afraid


yes, unfortunately, the GOP DOES have its own subset of racists and bigots


the problem IS, the numbers show that the DEMS have them in GREATER number


i know that WON'T be a popular, ahem, item to bring up on this site, but it IS the truth, ladies and gentlemen


even WITHOUT the "by state" breakdowns, the fact that probably 5-10% of ANY population subgroup will display these tendencies to some marked (and obnoxiously noticeable!) degree, the sheer weight OF the Dems numerical advantage in the country (58% - 42%, from most sources i've read), rather dictates that the Dems will HAVE them in greater numbers, you see?

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

________________________________________________


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidencies

R - Reagan x 2 terms
R- HW Bush x 1 term
D - Clinton x 2 terms
R - W Bush x 2 terms

28 years - 20 under a Rethug President.

the makeup of those Congresses in the HOUSE, sir?


like i SAID..........

let me KNOW the makeup when the GOP controlled ALL the levers, bud


and i'll SHOW you the times the DEMS had the steering wheel, and DIDN'T "do anything 'bout health care"

but I would remind you that the GOP of Nixon is far removed from the GOP of Bush. He at least tried to do something on health care. Health care then had to wait until Clinton and now Obama before it was tackled as an issue.

The GOP still carries the blood of millions of innocent Iraqis - for what?

if you admired that POS Nixon, then i think i see the problem, frankly

i was one (of the seeming few) that opposed BOTH our invasions of Iraq AND Afghanistan.... so you'll not get an argument from me on at least THAT score


but you'd better go and check about the history of which party has HAD the longer (AND far bigger) "runs" of majorities the last hundred years or so, fella


and yes, Bush screwed the pooch in his foray into military adventurisms.... my point BEING, however, that the Dems have a MUCH worse track record in THAT regard, historically


no getting 'round THAT simple fact, sir

especially since 1980.

...NOR the even GREATER number of Democratic ones, sir


right?

of individuals and not a living breathing entity.

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have more in common with Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson than they do with anyone else in their own caucus.

... and well stated, sir

World War One could not have been illegal as there was no UN, the Korean war was not illegal and Vietnam has more blood on the hands of Republicans than Democrats.

... far PREDATES the organization known as the UN, right?

and i'd BE curious how it IS that you arrive AT the conclusion that "Vietnam has more blood", etc., frankly


i'm afraid you can NOT support that with the FACTS of history

now, as TO Korea.....

when DID Truman GET Congressional approval to wage war, AS the Constitution requires?

it was a UN war. America met their treaty obligations to the UN.

so you're saying that UN agreements CAN supersede our Constitution, then?

well, on THAT one we'll have to agree to disagree


now, back TO your claim that more of the blood in Vietnam was spilled "because of the Republicans"...?

gonna even TRY and back it up, sir?

you come in here and stir the pot and have a good laugh. Unfortunately, the debate over "which party controlled Congress the longest and did the worse job while they had control" is a worthless one. Its an endless back-and-forth of he said/she said and means nothing. Over the last 30 years its a mixed bag. I personally believe Dems have been the better care-takers but thats a debate that will take more time and more typing than I care to for a random person that will likely not be on this site tomorrow. Not going back further than that, an even MORE worthless debate. I also note though that that issue isn't the bur under your saddle though. It might be a "who" but its not the "what". Its the "what" part of your problem that I care about. Make the point you really mean to make: "Dems haven't done anything about health care Insurance reform either, have they?". That's your real point, isn't it?
On that note you are very much in the wrong. Again, NOT going back more than 30 years in a health care insurance reform debate either. The type and state of health care in this country more than 30 years ago IS NOT what it has been during the last 30 years. Another reason is that health care in the US, in a form similar to how it is now, didn't exist before 1930 or so and its evolved into a different animal than from when it started. I will relate one interesting factoid: Roosevelt (after he left the Republican party and joined the Progressive party) was the first presidential office seeker to purpose universal health care during the election of 1912 when he ran against Woodrow Wilson. He lost and though Congress tried to pick it up after the election, it had no support from the executive branch and had no where to go. Now, on to my point.
Over the last 30 years, there has been only one president that attempted some sort of universal health care/insurance reform and that was Clinton. Just as Nixon had his derailing moment for his effort, so did, to a lesser extent, Clinton. You can't blame Congress after that. Our whole country's focus shifted to defense and it wouldn't have had the support of the executive branch anyway and would have been just as dead as it was during Wilson's tenure. Plus it wasn't a complete wash for Congress and health care/insurance reform though. There was Schip for children (which was only passed by brute force efforts from Congressional Dems). You could count Medicare part D but I wouldn't. I think its hurt more than its helped and does more to confuse people than it does to make it easier. Now we have a President who as AGAIN taken on the task of health care/insurance reform but this time he has a legislative branch that is, mostly, willing to work with him on it. So we have the two needed parties at the table. I think we had a bad start and some even crazier (BAT SHIT CRAZY) distractions, but in the end we are going to get there this time. NO pre-existing conditions, no massive annual cost increases, no dropping due to illness. At the very least that would be a good start. Public Option is critical to bring sanity back to an industry out of control and to give people that need it a REAL option that they can not only afford but is useful. Feel free to have your say now.

and welcome to DU

i thought i'd actually GET informed debate on this site, and opinions and facts to make me THINK about my positions


seems at least a few here are disabusing me of THAT preconception, n'est ce pas? ;-)

but that's okay, i can see that the quick drawing of the ad hominem arrow from some people's quivers IS a universal/bipartisan flaw

at least YOU, sir (i'm assuming? correct my error if incorrect), engaged IN logical argument, and seem to realize the country's ill-served by EITHER side constantly demonizing the other

for that i applaud you, honestly

and WHY, exactly, CAN'T we "blame Congress for that", bud?

they ARE, after all, the ones that draft and enact bills into law

while i'm, believe it or not, 100% OPPOSED to universal coverage, i'm neither convinced that what's being drawn up is either the "best solution", Constituionally valid, nor fiscally prudent at this time

we're already on the hook for something like $80 trillion in unfunded liabilities (CBO) for the Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and Prescription Drug plan

that's about 5 TIMES the entire country's yearly GDP, for reference

rather dwarfs that $11.8 trillion on the books as the, ahem, "official" national debt, wouldn't you say?

Now, I will vary ever so slightly on my subject matter only to make a stronger point back to my subject matter. I would suspect that you are smarter than the fiscal conservative "company-line" you're towing when you use phases like "unfunded liabilities". Our country has had trillions of dollars of "unfunded liabilities" throughout its history and we have managed through it. Not to mention the unsustainable growth of our defense spending. While there are valid "worst-case" scenarios out there, the CBO numbers are based on current spending projections that factor in items like the Bush-era tax cuts that we may or may not see the full impact of on our future economy or other similar programs that have "sunset" dates that could be changed or made permanent. There are ways we could improve on the situation or there could be potential changes that might occur in our economy. In short, It has to use current numbers for future projections and therefore its outcomes are not written in stone. Not saying that is wrong or that a "worst-case" scenario couldn't happen but for now I'll hold off on the "selling all my possessions and sitting naked on my roof waiting for Jesus to come" response to the issue if you don't mind. I will agree though, that in every category, we have learn to spend smarter and with a little more deference toward the bottom line.
Now, why what I said matters to my point. Health care cost are increasing at an unsustainable rate for the average American.
I would imagine that you are not rich (i.e. "rich" as being defined as earning a personal income in excess of $250,000 a year), and that you likely work for a company or you may work for yourself but regardless, you carry some sort of health insurance. It is likely from BCBS or United or Cigna or one of the other major players. I would like you, as a fiscal conservative, to analyze the growth of your premiums and out-of-pocket costs in relation to the growth of inflation and as a percentage of your annual budget. If you haven't, you should. It eats up more of it than you think and it is taking more of it, year over year, than any other item of your budget. Its costs to you are growing faster than inflation, taxes, gas, utilities and food. Don't look at just the premiums, look at the TOTAL out-of-pocket for health care for you and your family. You may be lucky and have good health, good for you. That is not the case for everyone. Most people are one serious illness away from death or insolvency or both. It has nothing to do with their education, race, upbringing or the state they live in. It is just the way the insurance system works. In CA, the insurance industry deigned 23% of all initial claims. Many can fight for months trying to get a treatment or drug approved and for some it ends up being to late. Why does that matter to a fiscal conservative? Because all of these things have costs associated with them: lost production, death benefits, short-term disability, long-term disability, SSI benefits, medicaid and medicare cost increases and on and on. Poor health care and poor health insurance have costs that don't just impact a family but impact companies and our society. That is the great "hidden" costs and the health industry's dirty secret that it would like to keep out of the current debate. It is why even fiscal conservatives should hope that health care insurance reform is successful this year. Why, because our future DOES depend on it.


*edit to make some changes

Although you may not be around long enough to see what I say.

Illegal wars? Well, the declaration of war in WWI was legit according to the constitution, and we did *fight* against a case of clear-cut aggression, even if it didn't involve us directly. The Korean War was also naked aggression, and there was a UN mandate for us to reverse it. As a member state of the UN we were within our bounds to respond.

"and 'they' didn't do much about health care EITHER, did they?"

Well, unless you consider social security, Medicare and Medicaid to be "not much", then yes. Also let's keep in mind that it was your Republican friends who saw to the end of Harry Truman's health care push in 1948, and Pres. Eisenhower who made sure that didn't rise from the political grave.

People, glass houses, stones and whatnot.

... already to imply my time here will BE short-lived


well, if it is, that will NOT be MY decision, i assure you


but i think it WOULD speak volumes, considering the civil tone i've employed, if it WERE to happen by OTHER than my choice, frankly

well, if WWI was "legal" because OF Congressional approval garnered BY a rather flimsy casus belli, Korea was "legal" DESPITE lacking either casus belli OR Congressional nod, and Vietnam was "legal" given the specious Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (can YOU say "doctored/spun intelligence to achieve a desired goal? ;) ), then i GUESS OIF and Afghanistan were equally "legal", correct?

and i've already, i believe, stated my "objection" to yet ANOTHER unfunded entitlement program being heaped on the pile

(and yes, i most certainly DID raise the same objection to Bush's ill-conceived AND executed prescription plan, btw)

I agree. Go for it. Get those motherfuckers!