It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Lesson of Wisconsin

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:48 PM
We should understand what the essence of this problem is. The primary lesson that people should learn

That is when Republicans are in power the country suffers.


What we don’t understand is that Republicans are primitive, ignorant, bigoted, and complete puppets of the rich, who want to bring us back to a world of darkness and serfdom. If they win in 2012, believe me, the world will be in serious trouble.

Every Republican administration does something horribly evil.
Nixon with Watergate; Reagan Iran-Contra, and starting the neo-conservative movement . . . . And of course the last Bush; with the fake 911, and the Iraq holocaust.
The next Republican administration will likely be something particularly awful.

Unfortunately, the American people ALWAYS get duped by the canard “all politicians are the same” though the Republicans are 100 percent for the rich and at least the Democrats, though imperfect, are on the issues, in tune with the average middle class and lower middle class American.

It is the issues that matter, not the phony issue of budget deficits and interest in balancing the budget. There the Republicans are selective. When a Republican balloons the deficit its all right, but when a Democrat gets in office, even though in this case it was the Republican Bush’s bailout of Wall Street that ballooned the deficit, they forget about that and blame it all on the Democrat.

Where were the Republicans and the Tea party when Bush and Reagan were ballooning the deficit? Recall Clinton, as bad as he was with NAFTA, at least left a budget surplus in which the Republican Bush ruined with his tax cuts for the Rich and the Iraq war.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:53 PM
Uh... no.
I lay blame of ALL of this at The feet of the socialist/communist/environmentalist "one worlders" who need this crap to advance what they see as "progress."

edit on 24-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:56 PM
Yeah - Obama was doing a stand up job before the tea partiers came along to ruin it, right?

Both parties are failing this country miserably - have been and will be for a long time to come unless we change it

Besides, don't you remember? "For the REPUBLIC, for which it stands"

This country isn't a "democracy".. was never meant to be

It was supposed to be a Republic

A Constitutional Republic

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:59 PM
Ron Paul is a Republican?

Could this be the start to get peoples voting focus away from the best possible candidate in 2012?

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:06 PM
Anyone who believes only one side or the other is to blame is completely delusional and naive. If you think the Republicans are pure evil hell bent on destroying this country and the other side is fighting for the average worker to obtain the American dream where butterflies and rainbows compliment warm summer days and everything is're ignorant. I wonder how much life experience the OP has???? Sounds like hes/shes lived in a liberal commune his/her whole life.

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by inforeal

We should understand what the essence of this problem is. The primary lesson that people should learn

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

Well you started off pretty good. The real problem is that all of our parties" Yes both dems and repubs" have forgotten who they work for. Its is no longer about us. Its all about there money. You should look at who donates to who and how much. One is no better than the other. Until we get a true independent, term limits, and campain finance reform, we are all just bought and sold.

All the divison along party lines is just used to keep us in fighting instead of turning our attention to the real problems sitting in D.C. and our state houses.
edit on 24-2-2011 by David134 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:14 PM
This whole partisan thread is ridiculous for every Republican president there has been a democratic Congressional majority. and we are still in a porta potty rolling down hill.Stuff your o.p. simple.

Reagan years

Reagan, however, had failed to get the country out of the continued recession. Starting in 1980 and again after the 1982 midterm elections, President Reagan worked with a split Congress with a Republican majority after the 1980 Senate midterm elections and a Democratic majority after the 1980 House midterm elections. The conservatives (whom Reagan backed) lost a substantial number of seats in Congress in 1982.[100] By early 1983, however, the recession had ended and Reagan was re-elected President, in 1984, with a record-breaking 525 electoral votes.[101] The Republicans' six-year control over the Senate ended in 1986, after numerous issues (the Iran Contra Affair,[102] unpopular support for Reagan's aid to the Nicaraga Contras,[103] the cost of the Star Wars weapons program,[103] farming woes[103] and trade gaps)[103] damaged the Reagan Administration's image. By 1988, however, Reagan was redeemed of these scandals and Republican Vice President George H.W. Bush won the 1988 US Presidential election by a landslide.[104]

Clinton years

In the 1992 US Presidential election, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton defeated President Bush (who's image was damaged by economic woes)[105] [while the Democratic Party had a majority after both the Senate elections and Representatives elections of 1992. This shifted the balance of power in favor of the Democrats once a/b]gain. The Republicans, however, finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994, thanks in part to: 1) President Clinton's unpopular attempt to establish universal health care;[106] and 2) Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich's Contract with America,[107] which was promoted heavily by the entire Republican Party.[108] By the 1996 US Presidential Election, Clinton's economic programs prevailed[citation needed] and the President was elected to a second term in a landslide victory. Despite Clinton's huge victory, however, the Democrats were still not able to regain control of either the US House of Representatives or Senate.
[edit] The rising influence of the media

Twenty-first century and partisanship
Smiling suit.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was dubbed the hammer for his enforcement of party discipline and retribution against those who did not support the legislative agenda of President George W. Bush.

The Congress in the first decade of the 21st century has been characterized by sometimes rather extreme partisanship, with many votes split precisely on party lines. Some analysts wonder whether fierce political infighting between Democrats and Republicans has prevented lawmakers from tackling tough issues such as global warming and deficit spending and prevented them from finding acceptable bipartisan compromises on issues.[126] In 2009, two former secretaries of State, one Republican, one Democrat, described America in 2009 as "riven with partisan bickering as we confront a range of serious threats — economic, political and military."[126] Congress, itself, has tried to make rulings to reduce partisanship; for example, H.Res.153.LTH discussed how personal choices about ethics were made on a partisan basis.[127] Intense partisanship combined with ethics probes can be a potent concoction; for example, representative Tom Delay was kicked out of the House based in part on his dealings with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.[128] Delay complained afterwards in the Washington Post about what he called the criminalization of politics: "it's not bad enough now to just beat 'em in policy or let them ruin your reputation ... they've got to bankrupt you, ruin your family, put you in jail, put you in the grave and then dance on your grave," said Delay.[128] Congress can still pass bills despite intense partisan opposition, such as the recent health care overhaul.[129]

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
When it comes to the unions, would it not be wise that they are all same under the law? Would not the state unions want to have the same power as the unions that represent workers at the same level? The one thing that is not mention, is that this is not a new concept, and it was a Democratic president, under a Democratic congress, that removed the power of the Unions at the federal level. All that the union that represent the federal workers, had their power cut, during the Carter presidency, removing all of their power to collective power, to where the only thing that they are capable of doing is representing a worker in personnel matters. This should be more true for any union where it deals with the public and in the publics interest, such as police, fire department, nurses, teachers, and other services. In the private sector, where public money is not paying for the wages of the workers, then it is perfectly acceptable, but not the public.

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by inforeal


Maybe if people weren't so dependent on the state, they wouldn't be whining about having to be at least somewhat responsible for themselves, instead of stealing from everyone else.

It has nothing to do with political parties at all. The lesson, if any, we should take from what's going on in Wisconsin is that you're a fool, at best, if you depend on the government for anything. They will always take it away from you in the end. That's what governments do--whether you have a "D" or an "R" next to your name is completely irrelevant.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:54 PM

Originally posted by inforeal

at least left a budget surplus in which the Republican Bush ruined with his tax cuts for the Rich and the Iraq war.

Actually it was just a "projected" surplus. The dot-com bust crippled that "projected" surplus, add in the war on terror + the Bush Tax cut's that more likely then not stalled the depression(held it off for a few years)= surplus never had a chance to materialize.

top topics


log in