Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Reagan’s Budget Director Says Republican Party Is A Coalition Of Gangs That Stands For Nothing

Posted by   + Show Post

Reagan’s Budget Director Says Republican Party Is A Coalition Of Gangs That Stands For Nothing 

2013/04/28
By 

President Ronald Reagan’s former budget director David Stockman excoriated the Republican Party in an interview he  gave to Newsmax TV. While he attacked President Obama for not cutting defense in an era where America is the only superpower  in no uncertain terms he laid blame for the predicament of America squarely on the Republican Party.

After Newsmax Anchor David Nelson asserted that many believe the house is divided (the Republican Party that is), he asked David Stockman if he believed Republican leaders like Ryan, Boehner, Rubio, Paul, or anyone else could unite the party. Stockman shot back with a response would expect in a Newsmax interview.

David Stockman’s response:

No. I don’t because I think the Republican Party is not really a party. It doesn’t stand for anything except reelecting itself. It’s a coalition of gangs….

The Neo Cons which I have no use for are only oriented to an aggressive imperialistic foreign policy, a big defense establishment, and suppression of our civil liberties. That’s a bad. I am against that.

The Tax Cons want to just cut taxes anytime any day regardless of the fiscal situation. That has gone to absurd lengths. I oppose that.

The Social Cons, social policy people, the right to life issue, gay marriage and all that, that’s irrelevant to governing a democracy in a free society.

That is basically the heart of the Republican Party. In that mix how can you find anything that is going to stand for conservative economics, fiscal rectitude, free markets, sound money; it’s not there. The Republican Party is basically irrelevant to the economic crisis that faces the country.

David Stockman has been a critic of the Republican Party for some time now. I wrote the article “David Stockman: “get out of the markets and hide out in cash” Corruption Of Capitalism” a few weeks ago where Stockman was quoted saying “This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Mr..  Stockman seems to be progressively sharpening his criticisms in all venues as the ineptitude and intransigence of his party continues. One can only hope that he will trigger what many are hoping for, a rebirth of a viable Republican Party that stands for real American values, a party that stands for middle class values, a party that remembers the time when it actually did good. Real Liberals need a viable conservative party to ensure the purity of liberalism is maintained and do not succumb to a lazy absence of a legitimate pushback.

by on Apr. 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Replies (21-24):
shannonnigans
by Silver Member on Apr. 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM
Stop being so defensive, oh my god!

I'm not saying that there can't be disagreement within your party, or any other, nor am I saying you can or can't, should or shouldn't agree or disagree with him. I merely thought he had an interesting take on recent Republican Party problems/issues and was wondering what yours was.




Quoting SallyMJ:

Overall, my response to David Stockman's opinion is: SO? 

I think you are implying that conservatives like me are not allowed to respond to monetary, policy, and fiscal, and other ideological opinions of previous GOP budget  directors we disagree with. Just because this is the status quo in the Democrat Party doesn't mean conservatives/ libertarians / Republicans are under that same proscription, and not allowed to have their own opinion.

David Stockman can make pronouncements all he wants, and talk about Cons this and Cons that, as if he has been anointed the Professer of Advanced Conservative Studies, just because he worked for Reagan 25-30 years ago. Please. Even Republican ex-leaders are wrong at times. Doesn't make him the boss of us. I've never even heard of him before now, and bet most conservatives have not either. When someone calls people he disagrees with "gangs," I would designate him instead as a "gangbanger" or a "gangster" seeking to impose his will and opinions on the people and shut down our right of dissent.

It is understandable that you - a liberal, who strangely seems to care so intently about the future of the Republican Party, believe you and Stockman have more sway over conservatives than the Constitution. Nice try. 

So I thank him for his opinion and thank you for yours - which absolutely is your right - but which has no sway over everyone, or even most people, in the GOP.

I too liked Reagan, I agreed with some of his policies, disagreed with others. But it's not as if he were God or anything.


Quoting shannonnigans:

Now that you've gotten the partisan oratory out of the way, what was your take on the content of what he said? Agree? Disagree?





Quoting SallyMJ:

Thank God for freedom of speech and of ideas in the country and in the GOP! So that even Republicans can feel the freedom to criticize each other? A healthy thing.

Can you even comprehend Democrats being allowed to have their own opinions, different from the Democratic Party? They would be shut down faster than you could shake a stick at them. 

So is it more reflective of power reserved to The People and to the States: to allow disagreements that are sometimes messy (GOP)? Or to squelch free speech, similar to a dictatorship, minus beheadings (Democrat Party)? 

OK then.







Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Friday
by Platinum Member on Apr. 30, 2013 at 4:41 PM


Quoting SallyMJ:

Gangs? You mean like the groups of murderers and other dangerous criminals - who, generally support the Democrat Party?

Those kinds of gangs?

I think gang members tend to be liberal, not conservative - so I don't think that is valid verbiage.

If I were liberal, I would demand you apologize. Bu since I value freedom of speech - even if I don't like it - I'll pass on that.

Do you have any evidence to support that belief? Or your insistance that Dems don't allow dissent? I've seen plenty of Reps hassled and called RINO's for daring to disagree with the party line.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Apr. 30, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Sure, here's some evidence:

1) At the DNC, pro-life Democrats were shouted down, and the pro-life display of a 12 year old girl was destroyed. Sounds like tolerance of other ideas to me.

2) The Democratic Party withdrew their support - financial and otherwise - from Senator Lieberman, who had served in the Senate for 35-40 years, not on his overal consistent liberal record, but because of his support of the Iraq War. He was a (Jewish) Democrat who differed from them one issue, because of his view on national security. Whether or not  he was wrong about that, this is the reason the Dems withdrew their support. He decided to run as an independent - and won - and then continuted to caucus with Democrats.

3) Democrats want to dump pro-gun rights legislators in their next elections. And they also want to introduce ne pro-gun rights candidates. Whatever. Consistency is not their strong suit. These individuals are not going to vote Republican, because it counters their arguments, and will ensure that their benefits are not eternal.

Gang members: I think it's a good hypothesis they they will be liberals, not conservatives. The Dem Party - Dependence on the government as the solver of all problems, argument that they get involved in crime because of poverty, continuation of failing schools, confiscation of taxpayer money for what Dems believe is the "greater good".

-  is a much better fit than the GOP - hard work, argument that crime has roots in the crumbling of the  family, ending organized crime, and that the individual should be able to save as much of their own earnings as possible. The GOP aims to overthrow their end their gang business. Republicans support individual liberty, Dems support the rights of society to the detriment of the individual. 

Do you really believe that blacks and Latinos - whom Dems recruit and promise a boatload of benefits at taxpayer expense - REALLY are going to vote Republican? And the history of blacks since LBJ's social problems, which the GOP passed - is that they primarily vote in lockstep with the Democrat Party. Why would this be any different?

So what are YOUR arguments that these criminals would want to vote Republican?


Quoting Friday:


Quoting SallyMJ:

Gangs? You mean like the groups of murderers and other dangerous criminals - who, generally support the Democrat Party?

Those kinds of gangs?

I think gang members tend to be liberal, not conservative - so I don't think that is valid verbiage.

If I were liberal, I would demand you apologize. Bu since I value freedom of speech - even if I don't like it - I'll pass on that.

Do you have any evidence to support that belief? Or your insistance that Dems don't allow dissent? I've seen plenty of Reps hassled and called RINO's for daring to disagree with the party line.



Friday
by Platinum Member on Apr. 30, 2013 at 6:58 PM


Quoting SallyMJ:

Sure, here's some evidence:

1) At the DNC, pro-life Democrats were shouted down, and the pro-life display of a 12 year old girl was destroyed. Sounds like tolerance of other ideas to me.

2) The Democratic Party withdrew their support - financial and otherwise - from Senator Lieberman, who had served in the Senate for 35-40 years, not on his overal consistent liberal record, but because of his support of the Iraq War. He was a (Jewish) Democrat who differed from them one issue, because of his view on national security. Whether or not  he was wrong about that, this is the reason the Dems withdrew their support. He decided to run as an independent - and won - and then continuted to caucus with Democrats.

3) Democrats want to dump pro-gun rights legislators in their next elections. And they also want to introduce ne pro-gun rights candidates. Whatever. Consistency is not their strong suit. These individuals are not going to vote Republican, because it counters their arguments, and will ensure that their benefits are not eternal.

Gang members: I think it's a good hypothesis they they will be liberals, not conservatives. The Dem Party - Dependence on the government as the solver of all problems, argument that they get involved in crime because of poverty, continuation of failing schools, confiscation of taxpayer money for what Dems believe is the "greater good".

-  is a much better fit than the GOP - hard work, argument that crime has roots in the crumbling of the  family, ending organized crime, and that the individual should be able to save as much of their own earnings as possible. The GOP aims to overthrow their end their gang business. Republicans support individual liberty, Dems support the rights of society to the detriment of the individual. 

Do you really believe that blacks and Latinos - whom Dems recruit and promise a boatload of benefits at taxpayer expense - REALLY are going to vote Republican? And the history of blacks since LBJ's social problems, which the GOP passed - is that they primarily vote in lockstep with the Democrat Party. Why would this be any different?

So what are YOUR arguments that these criminals would want to vote Republican?


Quoting Friday:


Quoting SallyMJ:

Gangs? You mean like the groups of murderers and other dangerous criminals - who, generally support the Democrat Party?

Those kinds of gangs?

I think gang members tend to be liberal, not conservative - so I don't think that is valid verbiage.

If I were liberal, I would demand you apologize. Bu since I value freedom of speech - even if I don't like it - I'll pass on that.

Do you have any evidence to support that belief? Or your insistance that Dems don't allow dissent? I've seen plenty of Reps hassled and called RINO's for daring to disagree with the party line.



All I can find on the 11 yr old girl is on pro-life websites so I have my doubts but if it is true, those who did that were out of line and certainly don't represent all Dems. Didn't see anything about pro-lifers being shouted down just that their views weren't included in the party platform and that was from another pro-life site who rudely refers to pro-choices as pro-abortion so it's tough to take them seriously.

I think the Iraq war, and everything it involved was a pretty big issue and can see how it would be a deal-breaker. I know a few who switched parties over that war.

Source on Dems wanting to dump pro-gun rights legislators? That would include most of the party, I only know of a couple who want to ban guns.

I don't assume to know the thoughts, politics or voting choices of anyone, much less an entire group. I find such assumptions to be arrogant and rude. I know one actual Thug and he doesn't bother to vote. As you said they are criminals so many have felonies and can't even vote at all.

Just because some Dems are assholes about things, doesn't mean they represent all Dems...any more than asshole Reps represent all Reps.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)