If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

The Republican-Nazi Party

I heard on the news yesterday that the Republicans were planning on introducing a resolution to rename the Democratic Party the “Socialist-Democratic Party.” At first I thought they were actually planning on introducing this resolution in the House where it would almost certainly fail since there are more Democrats in the House than there are Republicans. But then I realized that this resolution was only going to be made to the Republican National Committee. As it turns out, the Republicans decided not to go this route and to instead just make their resolution to ask the Democrats to “stop pushing our country toward socialism.”

I think it is to bad that the Republicans didn’t go with their first idea. Because if the Republicans had pushed to rename the Democratic Party the “Socialist-Democratic Party” it would be meaningless anyway. The thing that I kept thinking as I read the story on the various news sites was how incredibly stupid such a resolution would be. For one thing, it again brands the Republican Party as the party of obstruction, hate, and mean spirited partisanship. Second, it shows just how irrelevant the Republican Party is that even if they pass such a resolution, it changes nothing. And third, if the Democrats decided to go tit-for-tat on this, the Republicans would be in real trouble.

Let me address that last point a little bit more. Let’s say that the Democrats decided that we think the Republican Party should be renamed the “Bush Party” or perhaps the “Republican-Nazi Party.” The Democrats wouldn’t make such a resolution within the Democratic National Committee. Let’s say that the Democrats instead made this resolution in the United States Congress. Chances are such a resolution would actually pass. It would be legally binding. In the 2012 Presidential Election there would be the Democratic Party candidate and the Republican-Nazi Party candidate. It would be on the ballots and people would be registered as members of the Republican-Nazi Party or maybe just the Nazi Party. In short, the Democrats could pass this! But they won’t because the Democrats are wussies who can’t even close Guantanamo Bay or end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Tomkinson

    The RNC resolution was stupid and pointless, not only because they’ve already done this before, rebranding the democratic party as the harsher sounding “democrat” party but some of the policies they ascribe to the dems were done at Bush’s behest.

    But the dems are still dumber, they correctly voted against president shit-for-brains by denying funding to close Guantanamo but only after morons like Feinstein, who still voted against funding, claimed it was all about fear. Its not fear, closing Guantanamo, particularly when there is no detailed plan for dealing with the detainees, is not only a pointless and stupid symbolic move (the only thing Obama excels at), its terrible policy.

    They then went on and passed a resolution that tells banks how to administer credit which can only serve to hurt responsible people. If that weren’t enough it contained a rider to please those that misunderstand the Second Amendment, by allowing white trash to carry weapons into national parks.

    And what has Obama’s inane attempt at “restoring America’s reputation”, gotten him/us? He was almost completely rebuffed at the G8, Iran and North Korea are rattling their sabers even louder, Cuba is double talking: AGAIN, and no respectable countries will take any of the detainees.

    • existential blues

      President “shit for brains”? I see you’re a real statesman and a deep thinker.

      People who accept religion ideology religiously are misguided; people who accept political ideology religiously (you) are just fucking stupid.

      In any case, the Bush approach to Iran, North Korea, and Cuba was a complete and utter failure. Do you think Iran started working on their missile four months ago? If we try at actually use diplomacy in our diplomacy for a year, nothing will be lost, and we will then be able to get other countries on board if we do decide to take military action, impose sanctions, etc.

      U.S. military officers and folks from the CIA in leadership positions have said that the existence of Guantanamo is Al Qaida (and other terrorist organizations)’s best recruiting tool, and that Guanatanamo and Abu Gharib are responsible for the death and maiming of many U.S. soldiers. Isn’t it funny that U.S. prisons can hold the most violent criminals, as well as gang members and organized criminals at all levels, but they can’t hold someone labeled with the magical, emotional title of “terrorist”?

      The Republicans have once again co-opted the Democrats through fear mongering. The Democrats just rolled over, as they often do.

      But hey, this is not aimed at you. You are a fundamentalist partisan, refractory to facts that don’t fall in line with your belief system.

      • Tomkinson

        Not a single thing you said is true, but please continue with the insults. I’m not a fundamentalist partisan at all. I was an outspoken critic of the Bush administration (even when he was governor of Texas) and I voted against it twice. I’m not any kind of ideologue, I’m a libertarian (small ‘l’) pragmatist , which is why I can be both be an atheist and not be offended by a creche at the court house.

        Because I criticize Obama doesn’t mean I love Bush or that Bush’s approach to foreign policy was great. Surely you understand that it is possible to disagree with both. I want tangible signs that Obama’s is better, so far they’ve been worse.

        As for Obama’s brain power all evidence indicates it is comparable to Bush’s whom you denigrate repeatedly, both are intellectual empty suits. Obama is merely more eloquent but his speeches are even more devoid of the logical and empirical content which are the only means we can judge him against. Take today’s speech and ask yourself these questions:

        1. Why didn’t he mention what will ultimately happen to the Uyghurs at Guantanamo who will most likely be released in the U.S.? He brought it up then dropped it with no answer. The request they be assimilated to the Uyghur population in VA was rebuffed by Democrat Jim Webb. This is a practical, real-world, concern about people who will NOT be incarcerated if they reach our shores. If you Staks are not aware of this as per your comments you haven’t paid the slightest attention to the issues, unsurprising then that you defend Obama.

        2. Why did he use Moussaoui and Yousef as examples of how our domestic criminal courts can handle terrorist cases? Surely he knows when you pick people up on the battle field not only is CSI not going to show up, gather and properly care for the evidence, you have chain of custody problems and other issues that make such a comparison ludicrous. He himself acknowledges we must establish not only military commissions (where he again co opts a Bush policy) but parallel detainment and surveillance courts which aren’t even on the drawing board stage and for which he has zero support. Under the best circumstances this will take at least a year, why didn’t he say so and why on Earth use those examples?

        3. Why does he assume we are less safe with those policies? Give me the evidence, not the rhetoric. Neither he nor you explained to me how no American civilians died as opposed to thousands of civilians prior to enhanced interrogation & Guantanamo.

        Not only is this true for the U.S, but just about every other terrorist attack against our nationals or allies has become less sophisticated and less effective every year. 9/11 2001 killed 2974, the Bali bombings in 2002 killed 202, the Madrid train bombings in 2004 killed 191, the London bombings in 2005 killed 52, and most recent plots have killed 0. Expand the data set and plot it on a graph, what do you see? I thought Obama was going to restore science to its rightful place.

        4. Why doesn’t he call Cheney’s bluff and release the documents that Cheney wants him to? Cheney’s speech was scheduled before Obama’s, they clearly chose their time to contrast with Cheney so why not discredit him if they can? The President can immediately declassify any documents he wants but instead we have to take it on his “faith” that this intelligence could have been gathered via other means. Liberal commentators never cease to boast about how Obama talks the country like adults I’d rather be treated as an adult and judge for myself.

        5. Why was it OK for Obama a few weeks ago to authorize the execution of 3 Somali pirates who were out of gas and surrounded by Naval vessels because they threatened the safety of one civilian but not OK to subject murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed responsible for the deaths of thousands and with information that could prevent the deaths of thousands more to a non-lethal procedure we perform on our own special forces?

        I am opposed to the death penalty, Obama is for it as long as it is used as an instrument of mob vengeance or to quote him directly “the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.” So for Obama we can kill for vengeance but not subject people to unpleasantness to prevent further death.

        I suppose demanding evidence, policy specifics, logical and moral consistency makes me a fundamentalist partisan. Nice thoughtful blog you’ve got here.

        • Mr. X

          So far I’ve only skimmed this comment, but for starters – Killing someone with a sniper-rifle, during a hostage-situation standoff, is NOT an “execution”!

          Thank YOU, Mr. Strawman!

          • Tomkinson

            Next time, read the comment and better yet, think about it. The pirates were stranded with no gas or food, surrounded by war ships. None of the teenage pirates had ANY history of killing or harming anyone. It was probable the captain would have been rescued alive and unharmed without resorting to execution. But that probability was only say 80%

            I agree wholeheartedly with Obama’s actions. There was a roughly 20% an American civie could die so it was right 2 kill “3″ people to save “1″ somebody (who most likely would have survived regardless).

            But how dare the government waterboard killers that were planning even more lethal attacks to prevent more innocent death. Killing 3 teens to “save” one middle-aged adult, thats OK but subjecting hardened terrorists to water boarding: What a compromise of our principals? Only for someone whose intellect is overshadowed by their ignorance.

  • http://yahoo Ed Baker

    Is Socialism really that bad ? When this country was founded ,the top one percent of the population controlled 80% of the wealth .
    Here it is 233 years later and still one percent still controlls 80 % of the wealth .Capitalism works for them ,How are you doing ???I am not talking about the upper middle class (Doctors ,Lawyers CEO`S ) not the other 95 percent of the population .Napoleon once said ,” If not for religion ,the poor would have surely killed off the rich “

    • existential blues

      Nobody seems to be able to define what “socialism” is. To the Republicans, it means “all that is bad”. They’d call the swine flu socialist. Those same Republicans support all manner of government spending that sends money to their district or state, or ANYTHING to do with the military.

      What does it all mean, when the vast, vast majority of Americans support Social Security and Medicare? The Republicans are beating a dead horse with their continual chants of “socialism”. They are still living in the 1950′s.

  • 1225truth

    Good comment point, Ed Baker.

    I can’t agree about a proposed resolution to rename the GOP anything Nazi. America’s television “talking head”, everyone from ostensibly neutral David Gregory to Pat Buchanan would be howling to the defense of the “noise machine” corporatists in the hour of their indignation from defamation. Even Olbermann would be scoffing.

    I remember 1965 and by no means should the now minority squabble be ruled down for the count. Regrettably, the new administration is scrupulously avoiding proto-Socialist public policy that history reveals has actually **worked”", like temporary public appropriation of unstable of-their own-making financial institutions. The failure of its expensive alternative resulting in an unceasing pallid economy (at best) could be the fairy dust from which Republican fascists could rise again like the new American political phoenix, more resilient than ever.

  • http://www.poweressence.com/ Maxwell Jennings

    It’s too bad that the majority of people are gullible to marketing tactics such as this, even if it is a short-lived attempt at gaining support by scaring people away from the competition. I’ve even seen Christian groups using sex-appeal to bait converts, sort of similar to the subtle tactics the McCain camp is using with his hottie daughter appearing on talk shows representing the young Republicans. I’m looking forward to the day when the Democrats and Republicans lose their monopoly over government.

  • corporations8myBaby

    Wussiness aside (all politicians are opportunist-wussies… that’s the job description at times…), The reason the Democrats don’t “pass” a resolution renaming Republicans is because they are not driven by ideology that requires confusing and propagandizing the weak-of-mind. Religion, xenophobia, false patriotism, fear of intellect, fear of “the other”, are all tools of the few who need to whip up the 30-40% of us who live from our lizard brains.

  • Azadeth

    The Republicans are not Nazis any more than Democrats are Socialists. At best, both are outdated words that barely have any relevance to today’s society. That’s fine though, as their primary use is in mudslinging and fearmongering among tantrum-throwing political parties, as we see here.

    It’s the Right in particular that holds the record for manipulation by making up words or contorting their meanings. They do it all the time. See “enhanced interrogation techniques” instead of torture for just one example among many. I see no reason why anyone should stoop to that level in retaliation.

    • Mr. X

      I think “Nazi” is the wrong word here – why am I the first person on this particular blog to bring up the word “fascist”?

      From “http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism”:

      “fascism
      One entry found.

      Main Entry: fas·cism
      Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
      Date: 1921
      1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
      2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control ”

      Like “socialism,” it’s a rather broad term; but nowadays, it’s often interpreted to mean “a system in which corporations control/are the government.”

      Republicans scream all day about protecting “the rights of individuals,” but fail to mention that they’re only referring to the “rights” of their “individual” corporate interests. The rest of us get to enjoy the freedom of conforming to WASP cultural standards.

      I’ve been calling the Republicans “FascistLite” for some time now. The shoe seems to fit. Let’s hold them down and tie ‘em on!

      Who’s with me?

  • Soul Rebel

    It’s all just theatre. The GOP finds itself moribund and unable to do anything but position itself further and further right. In doing so they’re driving their moderates to the democrats …which in turn is causing the dems to play their hands more to the middle for their new constituents.
    If they persist on trying to paint the dems as ‘socialist’ they’re just going to demonstrate how further extremist they’re sliding. The GOP even seems to be resenting any effort to soften their image to attract new members with comments like that by an aide to Texas governor Rick Perry saying he didn’t want to see ” the GOP open itself up like a whorehouse”.
    They know though that it’s not up to them to change the name of the Democratic Party however symbolic this move might be would only make them appear like someone’s crazy reactionary uncle.
    It wouldn’t be so bad though if the dems did something bold like calling themselves ‘social democrats’. Then they’d have to be more aligned and committed to social issues… rendering conservative sleepers like the ‘Blue Dog Dems’ toothless and irrelevant.

  • http://theperplexedobserver.blogspot.com/ TPO

    Stephen has a solution for Republicans the who are wanting to rename the Democratic Party:-)

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/228188/may-19-2009/the-word—i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-