True believers-Contract w/ America

For the past 70 odd years the conflicting political partys in America have sought to gain an advantage over the other by using (encouraging) the lower class whites to believe that they were the party representing them. First it was by by demonstrating that they were the party to keep the blackman in his place. Then it was by proving that they were the party that supported the common man (the great unwashed; as someone once called them - as president, I might add - he really had a high regard for America ... Americans.). It always came down to gaining an advantage over the other by demonstrating that they were more prejudiced than the other. 'Til the 90's when Clinton took office, Reagan left the door open for the bigots (though I feel Ronny was one of the few just men, all in that he was not qualified to be president, but that he knew how to act the part).

It took nearly 60 years for the Republican Party to recover from their supporting the wealthy against the poor, middle-class, and rich to become known as being the "party of morality" (without any ethics of course). They created a new image - one of evangelical political fervor; without real substance, but with a message : "believe as you do; and maybe we do".

The real progression in the modern era was with Nixon, he supported and extended all of LBJ's progams - up to his 1972 re-election, when he took a hard right and began to allow the open murder of those that opposed his continuance in Vietnam (the College students that is). Still, Nixon was doing more good than harm - except to the constitution - to the country (unless one recalls the 15 -20% unemployment [he had the conscience to extend UI to 18 months - I mean Scientists were trying to get jobs at gas stations - maybe you don't recall], waiting in gas lines for hours, a 6-8% inflation rate. We were on the verge of 1929 all over again.

Along came Carter, the sap. American loved him, hated Roz his mate. Jimmy had promised to cut the bureacracy - and asked that every bureaucrat defend their existance (explain why their job was important - why it was necessary). One would have thought Jimmy was threatening to drown new born kittens - the outcry from Republicans (the "lets reduce big government mouthing party") was incredible (many Democrats weren't thrilled either). It was the horror of horrors for professional politicians - an honest man in the whitehouse. Which was ended by finding someone they could both control. Ronny - Mr. I'llsayanything,justtellmewhattosay.

Still, it wasn't enough for those that wanted to control America. They wanted to get back to the good old days of the 1880's, or 1920's - you know, the ones without regulations. Reagan gave them a taste, but they wanted more. Deregulation! It is almost a Republican battlecry.

Stats: Prior ro 1980: CEO's earned a 40-1 ratio to their employees (lowest paid) - afterwards it went up to 10,000-1 (even 100,000-1) and then some (who do you know that has +$60,000 shower curtains? for their maid?). Still, what the hey - if your supporting an ideal - even if the ideal is to make the rich richer? What's wrong with that?

Except for how it was sold. And this is how it was done:

1993-4, the proported agenda of the compassionate Republicans (to win office and rape America):

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

It reads wonderfully, I'ld vote for it. Shame one can't see through the deceipt it took in the years planning such hypochracy. More is the shame we don't have a second political party willing to confront it.

$455Billion a year to the Military-Industrial-Complex. Our nearst neighbor in that spend $29Billion. Who owns America? If we stop the funding of the MIC, will we remain free?

Bottom line? What happened with the "contract to America"? Was it a means to get their way? Or did it smiply serve the purpose for which it was designed? That being, convincing the white waitresses, truckdrivers, laborers, etc that one party could do something the other party (that was doing it -serving the majority) couldn't do - return America to 1860 without anyone noticing.

Then again, maybe that it to far back to go - even for the DixieCans. Who knows? Still, it seems odd that within a decade a simple promise can be forgotten, ignored, and any support of it by the formentors of it - smashed. Gee, who woulda guessed that Republicans would lie to gain an advantage? Not that Dems ain't, it's just that the GOP'ers do it attempting to use some kind of moral ground as support (ethics be damned, but morals seems to have an affect ... on some (dumb enough to believe words over actions).

Read, or re-read, the contract. It lies in the dust of the hypocracy of an ideology of greed. Greed, is the credo of the Republicans (and most Dems) - but it supports the future control of America by the MIC. The Contract was a joke at the time, and it demonstrates the lengths that some are willing to lie, to gain absolute power. It worked .... for a time (I suspect the2006 elections will balance things out ... again. Who knows, maybe not. Maybe we no longer deserve freedom. Maybe we just deserve a good commercial to tell us what to believe. Or, a smug smile to convince us we are safe.).

It's the Contract! Every principle of it was deserted by the people that proposed it. Why? Is it as simple as my original propossition? That once a party gains power, it forgets about the people - and concentrates on the money that got them their? Hmmmmmm? :balloon2:

What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

What's your point?

---

That most people prefer to believe a lie that makes them feel good instead of hearing the truth? That politicians represent themself and their financial backers, not the people that vote them in? :embarassed:

Re: 40-1 v 1,000-1 compensation.

Say I am such a worker. If I was compensated with 20k in 1990, and was making 54k for the same work in 2000, what do I care that the CEO went from 800k to 5.4M? I have more than beaten the inflation rate, so I have seen true economic improvement. My company is clearly successful, which enhances the probability of job security. In what way have I been "wronged."

Seamus

Talking about hypocrisy - the part you leave out Kafir is don't you work in the Military Industrial Complex?

Get over your hate for Reagan, just let it go, you will be better off for it.

Nice post, KC.

I agree, the "contract" was/is a sham.

You'd make a much better point if your bias didn't lead you to make such statements as:

Quote:

---

Along came Carter, the sap. American loved him

---

Which is why they elected Reagan, right? Right......

Crazed Rabbit

I love these far left rants.

You blame the republicans, the MIC, and Reagan for... what exactly? Giving America the biggest GDP? The biggest economy? Do you blame them for making America the richest country in the world? Are they at fault for our near perfect unemployment and our high standard of living?

What is this republican rape of America? All I see is the most powerful country in the world.. or was that all Clinton's doing? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

What is this republican rape of America? All I see is the most powerful country in the world.. or was that all Clinton's doing? ~D

---

A very fragile superpower at that, with increasing competition from the rest of the world, increasing deficit, increasing economic reliance on potentially hostile powers, increasingly weak (even if large) lower classes. Thanks to...I suppose we all know that. Not counting, of course, the effect of a decrease in stability, rising new wanne-be superpowers being world-class (pardon the pun) human rights abusers, increasing fanaticism, a sharp decline on personal liberty "for the sake of security", and all the crap that is going on in the world.

What pisses me off about the Republican party is their bloody high horse hypocrisy. "Morality" "Family Value" "Religious Value" hah! From politicians' mouthes!? Not that the Democrats are any better. Politicians, the WORST Americans rule America. Jeez...

Really, the two-party system is pathetic to its core. The less competition and diversity, the easier it is to establish a monopoly out of the simple fact that there is no good. Just less evil.

What's it called when a bankrupt company gets court protection against debtors? Right now over half of the flight seats in the US are on bankrupt companies that still do business. The investors have more time to get their money out, the debtors can lose more money and the workers get to accept worse conditions in order to keep the company afloat.

And yet someone thinks there's nothing fishy at all with the economy? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

What's it called when a bankrupt company gets court protection against debtors? Right now over half of the flight seats in the US are on bankrupt companies that still do business. The investors have more time to get their money out, the debtors can lose more money and the workers get to accept worse conditions in order to keep the company afloat.

And yet someone thinks there's nothing fishy at all with the economy? ~:confused:

---

Spetelhu:

You are bringing up a sore point for all of us free-market conservatives. The bulk of us would prefer a system wherein those companies that couldn't compete died (my pref) -- or at least had no more than one (1) very time-limited opportunity to use this dodge. Right now, with companies seeking chapter 11 status to free up cash for takeovers (e.g. K-mart and Sears) it seems a little nauseating.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Talking about hypocrisy - the part you leave out Kafir is don't you work in the Military Industrial Complex?

Get over your hate for Reagan, just let it go, you will be better off for it.

---

First off, Red, as you know ... I did work in the MIC - for 25+ years (not including my military service). One does what one must to serve the needs of their family .... without entirely conceeding the values of their youth (or their adulthood). As for Ronny? What's to love about the man that promised to balance the budget ($1trillion debt) that quadripled the debt?

I've noticed some love the word "hypocracy". Seems odd they don't equate it with Bushy's reasons for 2,000 mens deaths (soon - 1900+ todate) and 16,000 more being mortally wounded (we will as tax payers will give them a stipense 'til their wounds kill them) because we believed (some did) in the premise of WMDs. Still, all in all, since we now live in a hypothesis society determined by the propaganda one wishes to believe in? Why would I be surprised that some would wish to believe in it?

I mean, what a joke that someone that had the knowledge, the expertice, the ability to actually know the reality of the circumstance? Chose to ignore it - because, it didn't conform to his (hers) perspeption of their reality. As in, it did not conform to their predetermined philosophy against something, someone, or a political party.

Red, nothing against you man. But, admit you are stuck in the mess created by thems that raised youse, and I admit being subjected to other ideas than those. Seems fair, don't you think? You admit being stuck in one ideology, and I admit still seeking one? What could seem fairer?

Unless, of course, you go back and actually read what was promised - actually created under Clinton - and then disgarded under Bush43.

Then again, I only witness history ... I don't attempt to recreate it ----- 'til it be over (and Bush43, he be over... stick a fork in him ... he's done).

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I love these far left rants.

What is this republican rape of America? All I see is the most powerful country in the world.. or was that all Clinton's doing? ~D

---

You know I'm starting to like you less and less. Not that you care, but you should just rant yourself...

And to tell you the truth, America is not as great a superpower as you may want us to believe.

Quote:

---

You know I'm starting to like you less and less.

---

Do you think you are unique in your position? You're in the back of the(long) line of people who hate me. :shrug:

In any event, I think I like you. Those are some nice forums you've set up. ~:)

You've redeemed yourself. In not bashing me, you've redeemed yourself.

Now to celebrate, lets have a good discussion on those forums! Come and join in!~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

First off, Red, as you know ... I did work in the MIC - for 25+ years (not including my military service). One does what one must to serve the needs of their family .... without entirely conceeding the values of their youth (or their adulthood). As for Ronny? What's to love about the man that promised to balance the budget ($1trillion debt) that quadripled the debt?

---

Yep hypocricy at its finest is it not. ?

Quote:

---

I've noticed some love the word "hypocracy". Seems odd they don't equate it with Bushy's reasons for 2,000 mens deaths (soon - 1900+ todate) and 16,000 more being mortally wounded (we will as tax payers will give them a stipense 'til their wounds kill them) because we believed (some did) in the premise of WMDs. Still, all in all, since we now live in a hypothesis society determined by the propaganda one wishes to believe in? Why would I be surprised that some would wish to believe in it?

---

What are you going on about - it seems you see the hypocrisy in others but refuse to see in your own statment where you rail against the MIC - the same one that supplied you with income to provide for your family.

Quote:

---

I mean, what a joke that someone that had the knowledge, the expertice, the ability to actually know the reality of the circumstance? Chose to ignore it - because, it didn't conform to his (hers) perspeption of their reality. As in, it did not conform to their predetermined philosophy against something, someone, or a political party.

---

Now hold on to that thought for just a second.

Quote:

---

Red, nothing against you man.

---

Now go back to the above statement because your about to raise an interesting point.

Quote:

---

But, admit you are stuck in the mess created by thems that raised youse,

---

Oh the mess that your generation caused with its stupidity? Is that what your trying to allude to. Given that your a Vietnam era vet and I am a vet of a conflict that happened 20 years latter. Yep your generation sure did create a lot of problems.

Quote:

---

and I admit being subjected to other ideas than those. Seems fair, don't you think? You admit being stuck in one ideology, and I admit still seeking one? What could seem fairer?

---

Fair enough until I see certain demonizing terms that seem to float around when individuals are blinded by their idealogue to the point that instead of logical discussion they go for the emotional appeal and namecalling.

Quote:

---

Unless, of course, you go back and actually read what was promised - actually created under Clinton - and then disgarded under Bush43.

---

The contract with America went bust way before Bush 43. So no need for me to read it again.

Quote:

---

Then again, I only witness history ... I don't attempt to recreate it ----- 'til it be over (and Bush43, he be over... stick a fork in him ... he's done).

~D

---

Careful there big fellow - who's attempting to recreate history. Maybe some politicans - but like you I only witness history.

One line sentances against an entire premise, seems to win the hearts and minds of the right. Seems to justify their ideals, and lambast the opposition in a just manner - go listen to more Limpballs, and leave those of us willing to think on our own - alone... OK? So, what exactly is the arguement against what I said, about the CONTRACT?

None. Exactly, none. They have no arguement to support the reason for the GrandOldPoopies turning away from their former mantra (of 50+ years). Y'all know the one "The Dems spend money, the Dems raise taxes, the Dems can't defend US.".

Facts; The contract was a joke made by a political party that had already sold its soul (to the MIC and others ... hello Mr. DeLay) to gain power. The contract's only purpose was to show the American public that the GOP had a direction. Even if it was a misdirection of resources and intent.

Lets look at the facts. After the fact of the "contract". Not a single thing - was about saving the social structure - above saving the religious one (which never needed saving). Did it alter anything? Absolutely, under Bill Clinton the budget was not only balanced (which he had already promised), but a surplus was created. Amazing!

Still, I would appreciate an answer - in more than two sentances or less on each of my own phrases. Actually, it would be appropro if one could actually think through their own thoughts without using mine as a baseboard. Then again, I really don't expect a GOP'er to think to hard on the reality of what the GOP is doing - has done - versus what they have said they would and could do.

Ya know? I mean those accepting the "word" - can't really be expected to defend it. Accepting it, seems to be enough. Don't you think?

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

One line sentances against an entire premise, seems to win the hearts and minds of the right. Seems to justify their ideals, and lambast the opposition in a just manner - go listen to more Limpballs, and leave those of us willing to think on our own - alone... OK? So, what exactly is the arguement against what I said, about the CONTRACT?

---

Your entire premise is deserving of one liners when its so full of idealogue that it intermixes what Reagan stated with what the contract with America was suppose to be about. Which issue would you liked addressed. Pick one without attempting to use demonizing language and maybe I will have an honest discourse with you. However when one is posting in an negative ranting manner which is what most of your post is - why should I attempt honest discourse - we tried that once not to long ago - and remember what happened - you called my family's ancestors a bunch of names. I don't care to get into an insult of family and personality with you today.

Quote:

---

None. Exactly, none. They have no arguement to support the reason for the GrandOldPoopies turning away from their former mantra (of 50+ years). Y'all know the one "The Dems spend money, the Dems raise taxes, the Dems can't defend US.".

---

Since I am not a member of the GOP - I can care less about the Democratic Mantra or the GOP mantra - If the Democrats provide a candidate that I feel best meets my views I am more then willing to vote for them.

Quote:

---

Facts; The contract was a joke made by a political party that had already sold its soul (to the MIC and others ... hello Mr. DeLay) to gain power. The contract's only purpose was to show the American public that the GOP had a direction. Even if it was a misdirection of resources and intent.

---

Oh the temption to make a comment about selling souls to the MIC - must resist. ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Lets look at the facts. After the fact of the "contract". Not a single thing - was about saving the social structure - above saving the religious one (which never needed saving). Did it alter anything? Absolutely, under Bill Clinton the budget was not only balanced (which he had already promised), but a surplus was created. Amazing!

---

And the budget was balance because of why and whom? It takes two houses of congress and the President to insure a balanced budget. Now stick to the fact that Bush does not use the line item veto which Clinton did use several times when it became necessary in his opinion - and I just might agree with you.

Oh look, America has corrupt politicians.

Only thing that concerns me is people defend them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Oh look, America has corrupt politicians.

Only thing that concerns me is people defend them...

---

As you imply, corruption is politics is hardly unique to America.

Everybody deserves a legal defense - even if guilty.

Seamus