DVD Talk
Republicans come out with campaign slogan... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Republicans come out with campaign slogan...


hahn
05-12-08, 08:57 PM
"Change You Deserve" rotfl

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/gops-new-slogan-already-b_n_101376.html

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=274796

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3275387

Oh, this is going to be a comedy goldmine...

Can't wait for Obama to ask McCain the question, "So specifically what kind of change are we talking about here?"

Numanoid
05-12-08, 09:03 PM
According to my calculations, the change I deserve is 47 cents.

Th0r S1mpson
05-12-08, 09:30 PM
Maybe they are talking about the change Democrats will receive if they succeed in electing Obama.

Josh-da-man
05-13-08, 11:05 AM
It's kind of ironic that they're trumpeting "change" when they've been in charge for the past eight years, not to mention still running on all of the same policies...

It's like a bland, meaningless corporate slogan.

VinVega
05-13-08, 11:10 AM
It's kind of ironic that they're trumpeting "change" when they've been in charge for the past eight years, not to mention still running on all of the same policies...

It's like a bland, meaningless corporate slogan.
Change you're "familiar" with. Ah-HA!!! :clap:

Tracer Bullet
05-13-08, 12:04 PM
Perhaps they are going to run on a bold platform of keeping the penny.

Burgundy LaRue
05-13-08, 12:11 PM
If they can't give me change for a $100 bill, then screw them to Hell!

MartinBlank
05-13-08, 02:01 PM
http://i25.tinypic.com/15ry4d2.jpg

It's kind of ironic that they're trumpeting "change" when they've been in charge for the past eight years, not to mention still running on all of the same policies...

It's like a bland, meaningless corporate slogan.

Yeah, because George Soros is running a grassroots campaign with the money he raised at his lemonade stand :rolleyes:

kvrdave
05-13-08, 02:14 PM
"Don't vote for the Democrat when you can vote for the Democrat...uhhh...."

"Vote McCain, he can out liberal your guy."

Bacon
05-13-08, 05:37 PM
"Change You Deserve" rotfl

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/gops-new-slogan-already-b_n_101376.html

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=274796

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3275387

Oh, this is going to be a comedy goldmine...

Can't wait for Obama to ask McCain the question, "So specifically what kind of change are we talking about here?"rotfl :lol: rotfl :lol:

I've seen "the change" that W has brought us

If they're talking about more of that

NO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

General Zod
05-13-08, 06:14 PM
Well I'll have some change in my pocket if the Republicans stay in power and I'll have it taken away from me if the Democrats get in power.. so .. I'll keep the change. Thanks.

Numanoid
05-13-08, 06:25 PM
Well I'll have some change in my pocket if the Republicans stay in power and I'll have it taken away from me if the Democrats get in power.. so .. I'll keep the change. Thanks.It always mystifies me that people would rather see the country run into the ground (and thereby costing them extra hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of dollars) than give up a few pennies more in taxes. Simply amazing short-sighted thinking.

BKenn01
05-13-08, 06:31 PM
The winner of the election will be:

The Republicans if they can convince the middle class they are Rich and the other side will make them poor.

The Democrats if they can convince the middle class they are Poor and the other side is who keeps them poor.

That really sums up both parties goal no matter the slogan.

Bacon
05-13-08, 06:37 PM
Well I'll have some change in my pocket if the Republicans stay in power and I'll have it taken away from me if the Democrats get in power.. so .. I'll keep the change. Thanks.
BULLSHIT!!
but nice generalization

Th0r S1mpson
05-13-08, 06:52 PM
Obama flat out states he will raise taxes. Generalization?

Bacon
05-13-08, 06:56 PM
Obama flat out states he will raise taxes. Generalization?
And McCain won't?

Th0r S1mpson
05-13-08, 06:56 PM
And McCain won't?
Not on General Zod, he won't.

MartinBlank
05-13-08, 07:31 PM
And McCain won't?

McCain Promises Three Times to Veto Any Tax Increase (http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080220/20feb20081356.html)

Bacon
05-13-08, 07:34 PM
McCain Promises Three Times to Veto Any Tax Increase (http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080220/20feb20081356.html)
that means as much as "read my lips"

dtcarson
05-13-08, 08:24 PM
We do recall that there was a second part to "read my lips", don't we? The "I'll raise this tax, (Democratic) Congress, and you lower that one." Whoops, part two never happened. But somehow it's GHWB's fault. Actually, that's a common flaw in the Bushes--they believe the best of people, that the Congress would hold up their end of the bargain; that letting Kennedy cowrite education bills would satisfy the Democrats at least a little.
Can someone tell me what the "change" Barack keeps hyping is (are)? The only changes I can think of, that are from his admittedly powerful speeches are: retreating from Iraq ASAP, redistribution of wealth, and raising taxes/letting tax cuts expire. Oh, and "the government knows which health insurance you need". At least only one of the D candidates would mandate purchasing health insurance.

Bkenn: Yeah, I think it breaks down to that. Add to the Democrat side, "if they can convince people taxing mean companies/increasing their costs will make things better for you".

General Zod
05-13-08, 09:00 PM
It always mystifies me that people would rather see the country run into the ground (and thereby costing them extra hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of dollars) than give up a few pennies more in taxes. Simply amazing short-sighted thinking.
The proper way to "run the country into the ground" is to throw the idea of fiscal responsibility and responsible spending out the window and instead just overtax the citizens. Both parties do this but I've heard McCain say he will keep the tax cuts and look to reduce the size of gov't and both Hillary and Obama say they will raise taxes and I've never heard them talking about reducing the size of gov't. For those who want to see fiscal responsibility the choice is simple.

movielib
05-13-08, 09:14 PM
The proper way to "run the country into the ground" is to throw the idea of fiscal responsibility and responsible spending out the window and instead just overtax the citizens. Both parties do this but I've heard McCain say he will keep the tax cuts and look to reduce the size of gov't and both Hillary and Obama say they will raise taxes and I've never heard them talking about reducing the size of gov't. For those who want to see fiscal responsibility the choice is simple.
Yup, don't vote. :)

Lord Rick
05-13-08, 09:16 PM
The proper way to "run the country into the ground" is to throw the idea of fiscal responsibility and responsible spending out the window and instead just overtax the citizens. Both parties do this but I've heard McCain say he will keep the tax cuts and look to reduce the size of gov't and both Hillary and Obama say they will raise taxes and I've never heard them talking about reducing the size of gov't. For those who want to see fiscal responsibility the choice is simple.

Republican politicians ALWAYS talk about reducing the size of government, but they NEVER DO.

The last President to reduce the size of the federal government? Yep, Bill Clinton. Think about that for a minute.

A beloved President that massively increased the federal budget, with help from Dems? Ronald Reagan.

Again I'll say that Republican politicians are ALL TALK and worse than no action, the exact opposite in fact.

Th0r S1mpson
05-13-08, 10:23 PM
Again I'll say that Republican politicians are ALL TALK and worse than no action

As opposed to Obama, who is more like an action figure! :banana:

MartinBlank
05-13-08, 10:57 PM
Can someone tell me what the "change" Barack keeps hyping is (are)? The only changes I can think of, that are from his admittedly powerful speeches are: retreating from Iraq ASAP, redistribution of wealth, and raising taxes/letting tax cuts expire. Oh, and "the government knows which health insurance you need". At least only one of the D candidates would mandate purchasing health insurance.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d115/mirkel/SOCIALISM.jpg
:wave:

Th0r S1mpson
05-13-08, 11:05 PM
Can someone tell me what the "change" Barack keeps hyping is (are)?
Not doing things the same Old Washington way.

Which is a good line to run on when Washington approval ratings are so low and people are so vocally sick and tired of it. It also lets him get away with less experience, passing it off as less influence.

orangecrush
05-14-08, 09:41 AM
The last President to reduce the size of the federal government? Yep, Bill Clinton. Think about that for a minute.

Do you honestly believe that the Republican controlled congress had nothing to due with this?

movielib
05-14-08, 10:13 AM
Republican politicians ALWAYS talk about reducing the size of government, but they NEVER DO.

The last President to reduce the size of the federal government? Yep, Bill Clinton. Think about that for a minute.

A beloved President that massively increased the federal budget, with help from Dems? Ronald Reagan.

Again I'll say that Republican politicians are ALL TALK and worse than no action, the exact opposite in fact.
http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm


...

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

...

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%

...
Clinton's record is relatively quite good but he did not reduce the size of the federal government, according to this link.

Still, it's quite interesting to see that, at least according to this link, the Democratic presidents, during a forty year period (1961-2001) beat the Republican presidents on average on a whole array of economic measures that are supposed to be the exclusive province of Republicans.

Disclaimer: I don't know how reliable this information is and I understand these statistics can be manipulated in many ways.

Edit: By my calculations of compounding the annual growth rates, Reagan's increase was 68.6% for his eight years and Clinton's was 32.2%.

Further edit: Bush II is not included here. I'm sure he hasn't helped the Republican average. :lol:

Groucho
05-14-08, 10:21 AM
Yes, Republicans have never been better about reducing taxes than Democrats. They've just been better at lying about it.

wendersfan
05-14-08, 10:27 AM
Still, it's quite interesting to see that, at least according to this link, the Democratic presidents, during a forty year period (1961-2001) beat the Republican presidents on average on a whole array of economic measures that are supposed to be the exclusive province of Republicans.Essentially, everyone, rich, poor, and middle class, do better with a Democrat in the White House.

http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.png

kvrdave
05-14-08, 10:43 AM
Again I'll say that Republican politicians are ALL TALK and worse than no action, the exact opposite in fact.

Egads, man. The fact that you think this applies to only one party should tell you something. Clinton promised me a tax cut and cried and felt my pain after he worked harder than he ever had and put through the largest tax increase around.

You really think this is just the Republicans?

kvrdave
05-14-08, 10:44 AM
Yes, Republicans have never been better about reducing taxes than Democrats. They've just been better at lying about it.

wendersfan - please show us the marginal tax rates when Republicans and Democrats are president.

Groucho
05-14-08, 10:49 AM
wendersfan - please show us the marginal tax rates when Republicans and Democrats are president.Cross reference it with lies about said tax rates. ;)

wendersfan
05-14-08, 10:49 AM
wendersfan - please show us the marginal tax rates when Republicans and Democrats are president.I won't have time today, but I'll try to do so later. FWIW, you do realize the graph I posted above is after tax income?

Red Dog
05-14-08, 10:54 AM
Egads, man. The fact that you think this applies to only one party should tell you something. Clinton promised me a tax cut and cried and felt my pain after he worked harder than he ever had and put through the largest tax increase around.

You really think this is just the Republicans?


I do think the GOP is more talk, at least over the last 30 years.

With Democrats you pretty much know what you get.

Th0r S1mpson
05-14-08, 11:28 AM
How are the democrats doing on their midterm election promises? I ask because I honestly don't know what their main objectives were and what they succeeded on, but I'm sure many of you do. Thanks!

NCMojo
05-14-08, 11:50 AM
Change you deserve. :lol:

"Well, you idiots have been voting for us for the past eight years, so here you go -- John McCain is the change you deserve."

NCMojo
05-14-08, 11:51 AM
How are the democrats doing on their midterm election promises? I ask because I honestly don't know what their main objectives were and what they succeeded on, but I'm sure many of you do. Thanks!
AFAIK, the House passed everything on their agenda. The Senate is where everything has bogged down, since the Republicans have threatened to fillibuster everything that comes down the pike, and the Democrats have been too cowed to call their bluff.

JasonF
05-14-08, 12:03 PM
Essentially, everyone, rich, poor, and middle class, do better with a Democrat in the White House.

http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.png

That's only because you cut the chart off at the hundredth percentile. Based on those trends, it seems like people in the hundred tenth percentile or higher would do better under a Republican administration.

X
05-14-08, 12:13 PM
Essentially, everyone, rich, poor, and middle class, do better with a Democrat in the White House.

http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.pngHow about if lagging inflation due to that income growth is factored in?

It's fairly easy to get current income up, just raise the minimum wage. But what it does down the line in terms of inflation wiping out the benefits is another matter.

Th0r S1mpson
05-14-08, 12:28 PM
<img src="http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.png">

I think I've solved our economic woes. To maximize growth, first elect a Democrat, then make sure everyone is in the 20th Income Percentile.

MartinBlank
05-14-08, 12:39 PM
Essentially, everyone, rich, poor, and middle class, do better with a Democrat in the White House.

http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.png

That's super kewl! Do you think that works on a state-to-state level, relative to what party's "in charge" of the city or state? I mean, not counting Louisiana/New Orleans of course.

Red Dog
05-14-08, 12:41 PM
How are the democrats doing on their midterm election promises? I ask because I honestly don't know what their main objectives were and what they succeeded on, but I'm sure many of you do. Thanks!


That's a fair point. I still think over the last 30 years, however, the GOP is more talk.

wendersfan
05-14-08, 12:41 PM
<img src="http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.png">

I think I've solved our economic woes. To maximize growth, first elect a Democrat, then make sure everyone is in the 20th Income Percentile.Or 40th, or 60th, or 80th...

orangecrush
05-14-08, 05:26 PM
<img src="http://files.myopera.com/wendersfan/albums/149280/Partisanship%26Income.png">
Nice try. This only goes back to 1948. Not nearly enough data points.

The Bus
05-14-08, 06:40 PM
How about if lagging inflation due to that income growth is factored in?

It's fairly easy to get current income up, just raise the minimum wage. But what it does down the line in terms of inflation wiping out the benefits is another matter.

X, it's real income.

Lord Rick
05-14-08, 07:07 PM
Nice try. This only goes back to 1948. Not nearly enough data points.

Are you kidding me? Are you pulling a Groucho?

Who cares about before 1948?

The facts are, the Republicans of today and in recent decades(!) constantly talk about reducing government but they then go and do the complete opposite.

Lord Rick
05-14-08, 07:09 PM
Clinton's record is relatively quite good but he did not reduce the size of the federal government, according to this link.

Still, it's quite interesting to see that, at least according to this link, the Democratic presidents, during a forty year period (1961-2001) beat the Republican presidents on average on a whole array of economic measures that are supposed to be the exclusive province of Republicans.

Disclaimer: I don't know how reliable this information is and I understand these statistics can be manipulated in many ways.


I agree the statistics can be manipulated. Perhaps the link I was reading had adjusted for inflation, i.e. something like real dollars.

But the point is the same. Republican politicians DO NOT reduce the size of the federal government. Everyone should just have a big laugh when they hear a Republican politician try that tired old line.

X
05-14-08, 07:21 PM
X, it's real income.Yes, I know. I'm talking about the lower growth in income in subsequent years maybe being due to the "real" factor of inflation caused by the previous years' increase in income.

You could raise minimum wages by $5 per hour. All other wages would go up to take that into account. But the inflation caused by that increase could cause inflation to rise some years after that which would bring down the real increase in wages in the future.

So I'd like to see the lagging inflation rate correlated with those increases and then shift the inflation back down a few years to adjust those original increase in income.

BKenn01
05-14-08, 07:42 PM
It seems to me that it is nearly impossible to use a flow chart to give credit to or against one particular party. Especially over a time frame such as that. First off you have one party controlling congress at different times, you have different parties in charge of each of the 50 states. Then you have different people with different philosiphies in charge of local governments.

I can only speak for myself from what I can remember. Our family struggled throughout all the 70's, prospered throughout the 80's and most of the 90's. It has been a mixed bag in the 00's. Life economically was not bad under Clinton, till later in his term when the stock market started sliding. Was that his fault, I cant really say, I blame it more on the tech bubble bursting. But I really dont see a lot that he did that he deserved credit for either.

movielib
05-14-08, 07:43 PM
I agree the statistics can be manipulated. Perhaps the link I was reading had adjusted for inflation, i.e. something like real dollars.

But the point is the same. Republican politicians DO NOT reduce the size of the federal government. Everyone should just have a big laugh when they hear a Republican politician try that tired old line.
I'm sure my link is in inflation adjusted dollars.

But yes, I entirely agree. How the Republicans have gotten away with their bullshit claim of being the "fiscally responsible" party all these years is beyond me.

hahn
05-14-08, 09:43 PM
I'm sure my link is in inflation adjusted dollars.

But yes, I entirely agree. How the Republicans have gotten away with their bullshit claim of being the "fiscally responsible" party all these years is beyond me.
I think that this is because the Republican party has essentially been co-opted by neoconservatives. They've quietly taken over the Republican party to establish credibility, and then continue to operate under the guise of being conservative when in fact they have almost nothing in common with conservative philosophies. They continue to espouse Republican values all of which sound very nice in theory. The problem is since they are actually neocons, they don't really follow through on any of them.

It's a shame really because I'd consider voting Republican if I felt that any Republican candidate would actually do any of the things they say are the aim of the Republican party. I don't think ANY Republican in recent memory would. Ron Paul might be the only exception. If it were Obama vs Paul, I'd have a much tougher time making a decision.

NCMojo
05-14-08, 09:46 PM
Wow, the responses to that chart are great. "But -- but -- surely the chart would look better for us if we added in more statistical underliers! Maybe if we went back before 1948 -- what was the economy like under Rutherford B. Hayes? Bah, charts are meaningless anyway."

BKenn01
05-14-08, 09:48 PM
How the Republicans have gotten away with their bullshit claim of being the "fiscally responsible" party all these years is beyond me.

Yea, I agree about "fiscally responsible" being an oxymoron in the GOP, but the same argument could be made that the Dems continously get away with claiming to be the party of the "working man". oh I forgot todays politically correct version "working families" I hate that fucking slogan.

kvrdave
05-14-08, 10:29 PM
I think that this is because the Republican party has essentially been co-opted by neoconservatives.

Which is why McCain is the runaway nominee? :lol: Yeah, the neocons are pretty powerful, and there are just so many of them. -wink-

Josh-da-man
05-14-08, 10:42 PM
I'm sure my link is in inflation adjusted dollars.

But yes, I entirely agree. How the Republicans have gotten away with their bullshit claim of being the "fiscally responsible" party all these years is beyond me.

The Republican party is in favor of fiscal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government as long as the Democrats are in charge.

Much like how the Democrats found the need for fiscal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government about seven years ago.

(If you don't believe me, then consider what the reaction from both sides would have been had President Clinton asked for PATRIOT Act-type powers following the OKC bombing.)

hahn
05-14-08, 10:46 PM
Which is why McCain is the runaway nominee? :lol: Yeah, the neocons are pretty powerful, and there are just so many of them. -wink- Are you saying the runaway spending, the pre-emptive wars, the big government, patriot act, homeland security, are all based on classic conservative principles? Part of the problem is that many self-proclaimed conservatives like yourself have forgotten what it really means to be conservative. This is absolutely true if you continue to support the Republican agenda of the Bush years. There's absolutely nothing conservative about what they've been doing.

Whether McCain is or isn't part of the neoconservative movement is pretty much irrelevant. His administration will still be controlled/heavily influenced by the neocons.

movielib
05-14-08, 10:46 PM
Yea, I agree about "fiscally responsible" being an oxymoron in the GOP, but the same argument could be made that the Dems continously get away with claiming to be the party of the "working man". oh I forgot todays politically correct version "working families" I hate that fucking slogan.
Oh yeah, no argument, the Dems are full of as much bullshit as the Reps.

movielib
05-14-08, 10:48 PM
Wow, the responses to that chart are great. "But -- but -- surely the chart would look better for us if we added in more statistical underliers! Maybe if we went back before 1948 -- what was the economy like under Rutherford B. Hayes? Bah, charts are meaningless anyway."
Hey, you only have to go back to Calvin Coolidge.

wendersfan
05-15-08, 06:36 AM
Wow, the responses to that chart are great. "But -- but -- surely the chart would look better for us if we added in more statistical underliers! Maybe if we went back before 1948 -- what was the economy like under Rutherford B. Hayes? Bah, charts are meaningless anyway."The numbers go back as far as there are data.

<b>X</b>, I understood what you were getting at, and maybe if I have time in the next couple of weeks I'll look into it. Right now I'm pretty busy at work and my mom's in the hospital, so I don't have a lot of spare time.

kvrdave
05-15-08, 09:53 AM
Are you saying the runaway spending, the pre-emptive wars, the big government, patriot act, homeland security, are all based on classic conservative principles?

Based on the votes, they are liberal principles, too. -wink-

orangecrush
05-15-08, 10:19 AM
Wow, the responses to that chart are great. "But -- but -- surely the chart would look better for us if we added in more statistical underliers! Maybe if we went back before 1948 -- what was the economy like under Rutherford B. Hayes? Bah, charts are meaningless anyway."
Perhaps I should have added a ;)? I thought the joke was obvious.

mosquitobite
05-15-08, 12:29 PM
Based on the votes, they are liberal principles, too. -wink-

That's his point Dave. ;) The Republicans aren't conservatives. They're neo-conservatives.

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

Until conservatives understand what's actually happened to the Republican party, the march leftward will continue.

There's absolutely nothing conservative about what they've been doing.
God... I can't believe I'm agreeing with HAHN! :lol:

Of course, it's this statement that confuses me most when people have such left/right bitterness these days. If the two parties are currently so similar (even if their lies off their tongue aren't similar, their actions are), why so much hatred and partisanship?

I heard today that Bush claimed the Farm Bill is "fiscally irresponsible" rotfl Since when has Bush EVER been fiscally responsible? Oooh that's right, only when Dems have the majority in congress :rolleyes:

dork
05-15-08, 12:37 PM
I think that this is because the Republican party has essentially been co-opted by neoconservatives.
Which is why McCain is the runaway nominee? :lol:
These posts make me :hscratch:, but they give Pharoh heartburn so I'll allow them.

bhk
05-15-08, 03:41 PM
I have a suggestion:

The GOP: "We'll bend over and grab our ankles faster."

bhk
05-15-08, 11:44 PM
If the RNC had any ture leadership(given that a sen committee just blocked extracting oil from shale in CO):
Gas is still too cheap--Vote Dem.

Pharoh
05-16-08, 12:32 PM
These posts make me :hscratch:, but they give Pharoh heartburn so I'll allow them.




Gee, thanks.


:lol:


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0