The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='dmaul1114']By saying that you will not allow non-whites to shop in your store you are indeed telling all non whites what the can't do. You're telling them they cannot enter your business.[/quote]

Yes... and no. The fact that "I" won't allow "you" onto my property isn't denying you a "right" - it's enforcing my own rights. Granted, the end-result is the same, but the process behind it isn't.

And I'm not saying business A has any responsibility to what other businesses do.
Click to expand...

So, to extrapolate that an entire group of businesses would go all stupid-like and start cutting out large segments of the population from doing business with them should really have no bearing on any individual business owner who wants to restrict who has access to his/her property or whom he/she wants to enter into a business agreement with.

And it's something that would never be allowed to happen in the US again anyway, so it's moot.
Click to expand...
You're correct - it's very unlikely, in my life time, we'll ever have an environment where individuals will be allowed to determine whom they want to associate with without interference from the government.

Just like we'll never likely have a serious presidential candidate who will actively work to make major cuts to the industrial military complex or to break the corporate/political alliance that forms the majority of Washington. Guess it's moot to talk about that too, eh?
 
[quote name='Spokker']But racist dog whistles is a good one. I had not heard that term before. It's very much consistent with this idea of covert or unconscious racism or whatever the hell the white guilt pushers are selling.[/QUOTE]
If this is the first time you've heard that term, you're punching way above your body weight in this forum.

When Lee Atwater, one of the most brilliant(debatable) and influentual political figures of the last 50 years that was instrumental in creating the current political climate says that it exists, perhaps it's something to take note of. And Atwater was no liberal.

For someone so arrogant to tell others to do some research, you sure as hell can't seem to ass yourself into doing some before shooting off some seriously ignorant bullshit.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes... and no. The fact that "I" won't allow "you" onto my property isn't denying you a "right" - it's enforcing my own rights. Granted, the end-result is the same, but the process behind it isn't.

So, to extrapolate that an entire group of businesses would go all stupid-like and start cutting out large segments of the population from doing business with them should really have no bearing on any individual business owner who wants to restrict who has access to his/her property or whom he/she wants to enter into a business agreement with.

You're correct - it's very unlikely, in my life time, we'll ever have an environment where individuals will be allowed to determine whom they want to associate with without interference from the government.

Just like we'll never likely have a serious presidential candidate who will actively work to make major cuts to the industrial military complex or to break the corporate/political alliance that forms the majority of Washington. Guess it's moot to talk about that too, eh?[/QUOTE]
You know, you're literally arguing that Jim Crow laws should've never been repealed right?
 
[quote name='dohdough']You know, you're literally arguing that Jim Crow laws should've never been repealed right?[/QUOTE]Jim Crow laws were an overreach of government just as the Civil Rights Act was an overreach of government. This is a principled position and has nothing to do with who the person holding that view wants to associate with.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Jim Crow laws were an overreach of government just as the Civil Rights Act was an overreach of government.[/QUOTE]
According to that reasoning, so was the Emacipation Proclamation.
 
[quote name='dohdough']According to that reasoning, so was the Emacipation Proclamation.[/QUOTE]
It may have been an overreach of the executive branch, and Lincoln knew this.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm

Modern historians occasionally criticize Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, declaring it a hollow document that "freed no slaves." Signed by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863, it proclaimed that "all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."

Lincoln correctly realized that as President, he had no legal grounds to single-handedly terminate the institution of slavery--but that this had to be done by a constitutional amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply a war powers action by he, the commander in chief of the armies, in which he attempted to remove all the slaves from the southern peoples "in rebellion against the United States." Even in this, Lincoln was very anxious about the legality of his actions. He worded the document very carefully, in legal terms, in his attempt to make it legally binding in future courts of law.

He recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed quickly by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.
Click to expand...
 
We can, of course, continue to argue about how racist I am, but I also want to introduce a new topic. What's wrong with conservative women in Iowa?

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia

x2iWc.png


My girlfriend often laments that there is no pro-woman candidate for conservatives. I am surprised how many woman vote against their own reproductive rights and the rights of fellow women, if this poll is to be believed.
 
[quote name='Spokker']It may have been an overreach of the executive branch, and Lincoln knew this.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm[/QUOTE]
You do realize that you just made my point(again) right? That since it was an over-reach, the slaves should not have been freed because they were property. According to your reasoning, private property trumps all, which is stupid.

[quote name='Spokker']We can, of course, continue to argue about how racist I am, but I also want to introduce a new topic. What's wrong with conservative women in Iowa?

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia

x2iWc.png


My girlfriend often laments that there is no pro-woman candidate for conservatives. I am surprised how many woman vote against their own reproductive rights and the rights of fellow women, if this poll is to be believed.[/QUOTE]
Pro-woman conservative is a contradiction in terms. This isn't rocket science. You brought up paternalistic policies on race in another post; how is it any different with how conservatives view women and gender roles? No shit there aren't any pro-women conservatives because being conservative is all about reinforcing white male hegemony.
 
[quote name='dohdough']According to that reasoning, so was the Emacipation Proclamation.[/QUOTE]

If things followed their preffered way the system have turned into a sort of apartheid. Of course cons were huge supporters of the South African system.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I like you.

Also I was just erring on the side caution with the dog whistle comment:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...antorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/

He was using a racist airhorn.[/QUOTE]

Amazing that such blatant racism is so openly tolerated. Here I was thinking you were talking about his war on Islam comments (which is quite obviously subtext for war on Arabs) but I had no idea he was so blatant about his racism.

telling a mostly-white audience he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."
Click to expand...

God forbid he gets the nomination , who knows how far he would in the debates with his comments.
 
[quote name='dohdough']No shit there aren't any pro-women conservatives because being conservative is all about reinforcing white male hegemony.[/QUOTE]
These women who voted for Santorum would probably be angry at you for saying that, indignant that you would suggest they voted in other way besides following their hearts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about it too. Perhaps the federal government could go in there and break up the white male hegemony and liberate these women. I mean, how do you get them to stop voting against their own self-interests?
 
[quote name='dohdough']According to that reasoning, so was the Emacipation Proclamation.[/QUOTE]

The issue with the Emancipation Proclamation (which has somewhat been touched upon already) is that Lincoln choose to free the slaves in parts of the US where he no longer had the authority or grounds to do so. It was only used to attempt to get slaves in the south (and former slaves in the north) to help fight against the south.

However - the 13th amendment (along with the rest of the reconstruction amendments) were not at all overreaching - for two main reasons.

Firstly, the amendments were simply correcting a flaw ("flaw" is putting it lightly) in how the government viewed individuals of color at the time. The initial design of the government was an overreach when it allowed slavery in the first place. "All men are created equal..." and all that jazz - a human should never be considered "property".

Second, and this is key, the reconstruction amendments reference how GOVERNMENT is supposed to deal with race. The government should not use race as a factor to determine how the individual is going to be treated. I think we can all pretty much agree on that.

The part we obviously disagree on is how these amendments should reflect upon private citizens. Now, should a private business be forced to allow someone to come on the property and yell out profanities or negative things about that business? No - because the first amendment does not apply to a private business, it only requires the government to allow citizens the right to free speech. Should a private business be required to allow an individual to carry firearms on the property of that business? No, because the right to bear arms means that the government cannot deny us that right.

You know, you're literally arguing that Jim Crow laws should've never been repealed right?
Click to expand...
Yes... and no. If we're discussing Jim Crow laws that segregated individuals based on race in true public institutions (schools, courts, parks, etc.) then, no - in these cases, Jim Crow laws should have never existed in the first place and repealing unjust laws was the right thing to do.

If we're talking about privately-owned businesses that are open to the public, then, yes. That privately-owned business should be allowed to determine who is allowed onto their property.
 
[quote name='Spokker']These women who voted for Santorum would probably be angry at you for saying that, indignant that you would suggest they voted in other way besides following their hearts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned about it too. Perhaps the federal government could go in there and break up the white male hegemony and liberate these women. I mean, how do you get them to stop voting against their own self-interests?[/QUOTE]

I don't find it surprising conservative women vote against their own interests. Working class conservative men do it all yhe time.
 
[quote name='Spokker']My girlfriend often laments that there is no pro-woman candidate for conservatives. I am surprised how many woman vote against their own reproductive rights and the rights of fellow women, if this poll is to be believed.[/QUOTE]

I'm not one of these people, but...

For some people (and yes, this includes women), abortion isn't an issue of "reproductive rights" - it's about protecting the life of the "baby" (what you and I would call a "fetus"). For these people, "killing" a "baby" in the womb is no different than killing a baby outside the womb. If you are one of these individuals, then, yes - you should vote for a pro-life candidate. In fact, a candidate's stance on abortion should be one of your highest concerns (I mean, who would vote for a candidate who says he/she is okay with killing babies?)

I think this is why pro-life candidates seem to get more traction on the issue than pro-choice candidates - pro-life voters typically rank abortion as one of the top issues that help them choose a candidate. Pro-choice voters don't. I know I don't. If it came down to two candidates who were exactly the same in all other aspects, but one was pro-life and one was pro-choice, I'd vote for the pro-choice candidate, easily. However, that's never the case and a candidates stance on abortion rarely plays into the decision making process for me.
 
I just always find it amusing that people who want the govt off their backs and out of their lives want to get the goivt on the backs and into the lives of people with whom they disagree. Geese and gander, how do they work?
 
same principle as NIMBY. It's not "not in your backyard, either." It's "not in my backyard" (which implicitly suggests that you and your backyard can fuck right off).

Hedonism, baby.
 
[quote name='nasum']I just always find it amusing that people who want the govt off their backs and out of their lives want to get the goivt on the backs and into the lives of people with whom they disagree. Geese and gander, how do they work?[/QUOTE]

As I've said before, very few people actually want small government.

They just want government that matches their beliefs, morals and interests and forces those on others. When they think the opposite is occurring, that's when they start screaming about wanting smaller government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob'](I mean, who would vote for a candidate who says he/she is okay with killing babies?)
[/QUOTE]
The only thing I don't get is when a person is pro-life but turns around and says we have to execute criminals. They are pro-life but we should send someone else's baby to die in a war 18 years later. It doesn't seem very consistent to me. It's not a priority issue, but I was initially opposed to Ron Paul's pro-life views, but I liked that he was anti-war and anti-death penalty. I am pro-choice and not anti-death penalty or anti-war out of some humanitarian ideal, but I like Paul's consistency even if his views differ from mine.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
They just want government that matches their beliefs, morals and interests and forces those on others. When they think the opposite is occurring, that's when they start screaming about wanting smaller government.[/QUOTE]
Establishment conservatives believe this, yes. It is in fact their strategy. Then you have a guy like Ron Paul who may personally abhor something like drug abuse, but support a person's right to make their own mistakes.
 
[quote name='nasum']I just always find it amusing that people who want the govt off their backs and out of their lives want to get the goivt on the backs and into the lives of people with whom they disagree. Geese and gander, how do they work?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dmaul1114']As I've said before, very few people actually want small government.

They just want government that matches their beliefs, morals and interests and forces those on others. When they think the opposite is occurring, that's when they start screaming about wanting smaller government.[/QUOTE]

You also have to understand that the term "conservative" refers to (at least) two groups with different goals who are only loosely associated. You have the fiscal or "Wall Street" conservatives who only care about private profits. They believe that smaller government applies to business but really dont care one way or another about what happens to personal liberties.

Then you have the social or "Flyover Country" conservatives who care about 'conserving' some nostalgic way of life, roughly based on the old 1950's - '60's rose-colored glasses view of Americana. They generally distrust all people of power: whether political power or economic power. Thus, they want to shrink government as a way of limiting the power of another potentially over them. In actuality, they tend to want to empower the law-enforcement side of government against those they believe are 'criminals'. They dont really believe in 'trickle ondown economics', but believe that anyone in any power is trying to "eff them in the b" so, economically, all political theories are equally worthless.

What has made them (social cons) most susceptible to manipulation by the fiscal cons is that the socials' love of Americana makes them also mistrust anything 'foreign'. Thus any talk of a 'global economy' or a 'global community' is met by socials with immediate disdain. They think that American "dominance" is something that must exist in perpetuity. Any talk of "change" or thought of 'dependence on neighbors' is rejected out of hand.

What they fail to either realize or accept is that the fiscal conservatives are well entrenched in the global community. They want all the rules in the US and other countries to be as lenient to profits as possible.

If you read places like freerepublic.com today though, your starting to see that some of the social conservatives in particular are starting to want to rebel against the fiscal conservatives (which they like to call 'big government conservatives'). But there is no candidate that really fits their ideal model. (FWIW: FReepers seem to be pulling for Newt).

But the ideal of advocating or supporting "against your own interests" isnt new or limited to conservative women. Wealthy people such as Warren Buffet have advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy. There are blacks who want to see race based affirmative action morphed into more income based actions.

But, in the specific case of abortion, if you personally would never choose to have an abortion, then picking someone who wants to make abortion a crime doesnt go against your interests at all. At best, it's moot as you'd never try to get an abortion anyway so it doesnt matter if it's legal or not.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The only thing I don't get is when a person is pro-life but turns around and says we have to execute criminals. They are pro-life but we should send someone else's baby to die in a war 18 years later. It doesn't seem very consistent to me.[/QUOTE]

As for the first part of that, obviously, killing innocent "babies" is a far, far cry from killing not-so-innocent criminals. I'm not defending the pro-death penalty crowd (while I am for the death penalty as an *option*, I feel it should very, very, very rarely be used or considered. I would not support a law that would completely abolish the possibility of it, but I would support laws creating a virtual lock-down making it nigh-impossible to sentence someone to it) but you can't really compare the two.

Likewise with not killing "babies" vs. sending troops to war. I'm pretty hard-core anti-war, but even then, I understand that there will be times when good folks will need to risk their lives and pay the ultimate sacrifice. So long as there is absolutely no draft and these people willingly enter into the military, then I do not see it as something one can compare to killing babies... thus could understand why it isn't comparable to killing "babies".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']thus could understand why it isn't comparable to killing "babies".[/QUOTE]
But a person who is intent on dropping bombs as a form of diplomacy, without even declaring war with the consent of Congress, is going to kill innocent babies and children at some point.

This is not meant as a snarky comment directed at you, I want to assure you, as you've already indicated you are anti-war. My point is that someone like Santorum is massively, perhaps over-the-top pro-life and firmly in that faction, but his stance on foreign policy is pretty trigger-happy when competent diplomacy, which isn't even that much of a focus anymore, could save a lot more lives. And all the threats don't really work anyway.
 
Obama is...Obama. He's a lying, thuggish piece of shit who believes in absolutely nothing...basically, a politician.

Rick Perry is a religious wacko. The only poignant thing I can recall coming out of his campaign is calling a spade a spade on the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

Bachmann is a religious nut too, on top of being an idiot.

Romney, fuck, it's like Obama-lite but at least the guy has some business sense. If he was elected and retooled the government to run like a business, well I can think of far worse things. That said, like Obama, he doesn't really have any beliefs/principles of his own, only what he's told and/or what would be a good thing today, just like Obama.

Gingrich reminds me a lot of Churchill. No, not a drunken sot, but someone who straddles the line of genius/insanity and you never know which one you are going to get.

Santorum acts more like a preacher than a presidential candidate. He's another one of those religious lunatics who screams about dumbass liberals and their big government and then proceeds to tell everyone how the government should tell us all which holes we can or can't fuck.

That brings us to Ron Paul, the first guy since Reagan who, when he talks about what he believes, I actually believe him, even if I happen to disagree. For that, I give him all the credit in the world. Realistically, I would say that at least some of his libertarianism appeals to basically everyone but the worst liberal slime, at least on some level. My issue is that, like most libertarians, I think he takes the foreign policy part of it too far. Power abhors a vacuum and I'd just assume it was us that had that power because I'm pretty sure we wouldn't like the results of someone else wielding it. That's not to say they we should be running around interfering in everyone's business. If we can't solve our own problems we don't really have much business interfering in anything but the most serious of global issues. All of that being as it is, I honestly don't think he's electable. Most of what he says makes far too much sense and the American educational system is utter dog shit. The election of Obama was proof enough of that.
 
[quote name='utgotye']Obama is...Obama. He's a lying, thuggish piece of shit who believes in absolutely nothing...basically, a politician.[/QUOTE]
Define his "thuggish" actions.

Rick Perry is a religious wacko. The only poignant thing I can recall coming out of his campaign is calling a spade a spade on the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
Click to expand...
Ummm...wut?

Bachmann is a religious nut too, on top of being an idiot.
Click to expand...
More or less than Palin?

Romney, fuck, it's like Obama-lite but at least the guy has some business sense. If he was elected and retooled the government to run like a business, well I can think of far worse things. That said, like Obama, he doesn't really have any beliefs/principles of his own, only what he's told and/or what would be a good thing today, just like Obama.
Click to expand...
Please tell us more about Romney's business sense.

Gingrich reminds me a lot of Churchill. No, not a drunken sot, but someone who straddles the line of genius/insanity and you never know which one you are going to get.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate on Gingrich's genius and insanity as well.

Santorum acts more like a preacher than a presidential candidate. He's another one of those religious lunatics who screams about dumbass liberals and their big government and then proceeds to tell everyone how the government should tell us all which holes we can or can't fuck.
Click to expand...
I'll give you partial credit on this one, but you seem to miss the fact that every candidate has almost the same religious views as Santorum. Not to mention that he isn't the only one that wants the government to become a theocracy. Throw in any other candidate and it's the same shit except for Paul, but only on a technicality because he wouldn't give a shit as long as it's on a state level.

That brings us to Ron Paul, the first guy since Reagan who, when he talks about what he believes, I actually believe him, even if I happen to disagree. For that, I give him all the credit in the world. Realistically, I would say that at least some of his libertarianism appeals to basically everyone but the worst liberal slime, at least on some level. My issue is that, like most libertarians, I think he takes the foreign policy part of it too far. Power abhors a vacuum and I'd just assume it was us that had that power because I'm pretty sure we wouldn't like the results of someone else wielding it. That's not to say they we should be running around interfering in everyone's business. If we can't solve our own problems we don't really have much business interfering in anything but the most serious of global issues. All of that being as it is, I honestly don't think he's electable. Most of what he says makes far too much sense and the American educational system is utter dog shit. The election of Obama was proof enough of that.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...we've only been discussing Paul for the last 10 pages or so, and this is the turd you leave us with? Last question for the night: Do you believe that the Thug in Chief is eligible to be president or is his birth certificate faked?:rofl:

Everytime I see your handle, I can't help but read it as troglodyte...:lol:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As for the first part of that, obviously, killing innocent "babies" is a far, far cry from killing not-so-innocent criminals. I'm not defending the pro-death penalty crowd (while I am for the death penalty as an *option*, I feel it should very, very, very rarely be used or considered. I would not support a law that would completely abolish the possibility of it, but I would support laws creating a virtual lock-down making it nigh-impossible to sentence someone to it) but you can't really compare the two.

Likewise with not killing "babies" vs. sending troops to war. I'm pretty hard-core anti-war, but even then, I understand that there will be times when good folks will need to risk their lives and pay the ultimate sacrifice. So long as there is absolutely no draft and these people willingly enter into the military, then I do not see it as something one can compare to killing babies... thus could understand why it isn't comparable to killing "babies".[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about killing babies. I've never heard anyone advocating that position until now, tell us more.
 
Just saw a local news report saying that Perry gave one final statement before leaving Iowa that it is a pork state with pork policies because we allow democrats to vote in the republican primaries. Sour grapes much? I mean good god, what a child. How completely unprofessional can you be to take a shot at a state you were praising just 2 days earlier?

You know at least when Howard Dean had his Iowa meltdown he didn't pout like a child about it.
 
we hate afghanistan because they use religious principles to define their govt, therefore we should use christian principles to guide our own govt.

This line of thinking is apparently kosher for your average social conservative, but then they think that christian principle is an eye for an eye and has nothing to do with alms for the poor. I imagine such a worldview is either incredibly conflicting, or super simple since you get to just pick and choose from the more violent aspects.
 
apparently Rush has deduced that the US now being an exporter of gasoline is a sign of Obama failure because it's a reduction in energy usage which clearly leads to a reduction in economic activity. This despite higher mileage vehicles being more prevalent as well as other increases in fuel efficiency.

I laughed so hard that soda got into my sinus cavity so then I had a sad.
 
Rick Santorum booed leaving stage at college speaking event

He gets asked about gay marriage and essentially just continues to throw up the bullshit tired argument of if same sex marriage is legalized what is the difference between that and plural marriage. He gets very condescending toward the crowd and the individual people asking questions. Eventually when he's going to leave it initially the crowd initially starts clapping but then turns to booing and jeers.
 
Rick Santorum is a master of doublespeak... I don't trust the guy one bit. Here's on of his recent transcripts (focus on the last portion):

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

WTF? Doesn't less of less = more?

Full link here with a video:
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2...terview-impressive-citizen-wells-endorsement/
 
As a card-carrying liberal, I find it disrespectful that the best you can do is bring Rick Santorum to the 2012 election cycle. It's like you're not even trying.

For you Magic The Gathering motherfuckers, ever play your best hand ever against someone who clearly (1) doesn't understand the game and (2) just bought the starter set and *maybe* (at best) one booster pack at the Fordstown Mall Comix Shoppe and think they can legit take you on? You know that feeling of incredulity and "*sigh*, really? you ought to be ashamed of yourself."? You know that feeling? That's how I feel right now that Rick fucking Santorum is in the election.

It's not a sense of elation that the Iowa caucus results show that clearly Obama has just been de facto re-elected until 2016. It's the anger that comes from thinking that your opposition didn't bring shit to the table and still thought they could compete. You think Rick Santorum would do it? That's awful.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not a sense of elation that the Iowa caucus results show that clearly Obama has just been de facto re-elected until 2016.[/QUOTE]

Was there ever any doubt of this?

I've been planning on four more years of Bush-era policy for quite a while now...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Rick Santorum booed leaving stage at college speaking event
[/QUOTE]

Woooah, that was the stupidest rebuttal I've ever heard. I mean, woooah.

Almost respect him for standing by that, to be honest.

[quote name='mykevermin']
For you Magic The Gathering motherfuckers, ever play your best hand ever against someone who clearly (1) doesn't understand the game and (2) just bought the starter set and *maybe* (at best) one booster pack at the Fordstown Mall Comix Shoppe and think they can legit take you on? You know that feeling of incredulity and "*sigh*, really? you ought to be ashamed of yourself."? You know that feeling? That's how I feel right now that Rick fucking Santorum is in the election.
[/QUOTE]

lol, very solid analogy.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']
lol, very solid analogy.[/QUOTE]
Also, losing in Soul CalibUr to someone just mashing buttons.

[quote name='mykevermin']It's not a sense of elation that the Iowa caucus results show that clearly Obama has just been de facto re-elected until 2016 [/QUOTE]You say that as if it were a good thing. There is little difference between Mitt Romney and Obama as far as things a president can only get done by himself. Napolitano has good segment on this.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Also, losing in Soul CalibUr to someone just mashing buttons.

You say that as if it were a good thing. There is little difference between Mitt Romney and Obama as far as things a president can only get done by himself. Napolitano has good segment on this.[/QUOTE]

With regard to economics and military policy, most likely. Social policy is another story.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
It's not a sense of elation that the Iowa caucus results show that clearly Obama has just been de facto re-elected until 2016. It's the anger that comes from thinking that your opposition didn't bring shit to the table and still thought they could compete. You think Rick Santorum would do it? That's awful.[/QUOTE]

Now I don't have the facts to back this up... but I think the Republican party is throwing this election. They'll blame Obama for how crappy the next four years will be and send another Bush clone into office in the 2016 election.
 
^ Dole/Kemp 1996 was also an example of this technique, too. On one hand it's throwing the fight, on another it's honoring a legacy Republican's desire to run for President (i.e., "here you go, Mitt, don't fuck it up - tee hee hee"). On yet another it's perhaps a litmus test to see how fucking high up on the numbskull chart can the GOP get before voters abandon the candidate in droves.

[quote name='willardhaven']With regard to economics and military policy, most likely. Social policy is another story.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, yes. The right has been soooo much better at messaging and framing in the past 3-4 decades that they, and the moneyed interests that push politics forward invading the Democrat Party, have truly eliminated what would be genuine progressivism. Obama is closer to Reagan, closer to Nixon, than he would be to FDR - by a significant margin. I don't need to be told that my electoral choices are down to "full-flavor crazy-ass Republican" and "diet Republican." I know that, Spokker. Where is the genuine, hot-blooded "power to the people" progressive candidate for President?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Now I don't have the facts to back this up... but I think the Republican party is throwing this election. They'll blame Obama for how crappy the next four years will be and send another Bush clone into office in the 2016 election.[/QUOTE]

Maybe deep down the GOP poobahs think this. But if the rank and file cons don't get the negro muslim commies head on a platter there will probably be one hell of realignment.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']With regard to economics and military policy, most likely. Social policy is another story.[/QUOTE]

Even if (God forbid) Santorum was elected President, you wouldnt see as much movement on social policy as one might think. For example, I can guaran-damn-tee that the "abortion issue" will never go away. If the GOP as a party had any interest in really taking on Roe v Wade, they'd have done so during Pres. GW Bush's administration. But they dont want that issue off the table....it's too good for fundraising!

[quote name='willardhaven']Now I don't have the facts to back this up... but I think the Republican party is throwing this election. They'll blame Obama for how crappy the next four years will be and send another Bush clone into office in the 2016 election.[/QUOTE]

jebbush.jpg

Fixed that for ya.

[quote name='mykevermin']The right has been soooo much better at messaging and framing in the past 3-4 decades that they, and the moneyed interests that push politics forward invading the Democrat Party, have truly eliminated what would be genuine progressivism. Obama is closer to Reagan, closer to Nixon, than he would be to FDR - by a significant margin. [/QUOTE]

Did you intend to use "Democrat Party" for ironic effect, or has Rush's typecasting been working on even a 'card carrying liberal'? :)

BTW: To any liberal who thought that President Obama was a far-left progressive, despite what they saw on Fox News, he was always closer to Reagan than FDR. He modeled himself after Reagan on the campaign trail. The only thing he could have been considered 'far left' on was Iraq... but he wanted to go further in Afghanistan so he's certainly no dove.

I'd say, that if you go back and actually listen to what he said as a candidate, he's lived up to a great deal of it. Out of Iraq? Check. Healthcare reform? Check. Greater oversight on Wall St. Check. Middle Class tax cut? Check. Repeal DADT? Check. "Seek" out Bi-Partisan solutions? Check (to his detriment). Close Gitmo? Well sort-of. :)

Now not all of these things were done to the extent that a far left liberal would want, I get that. But he never ran promising to seek a single-payer/public option. Never vowed to legalize gay marriage nationally. Never committed to opposing Republicans with full-throat.

Many liberals just saw what they wanted to see and are now disappointed that he is what he said he was: a centrist.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Did you intend to use "Democrat Party" for ironic effect, or has Rush's typecasting been working on even a 'card carrying liberal'? :)[/quote]

Could be, since I do listen to Rush more than occasionally but less than frequently. I actually thought "is it Democrat or Democrat*ic*?" when typing that post, believe it or not. I was also quite hungover (that magic the gathering analogy post? I was *hammered* when I put that up there.) and had to get going with my day, so I didn't put too much thought into it.

But since it cross my mind and now I'm called on it, help settle the matter for me once and for all - what is the negative connotation of "Democrat Party"? I don't see it. The way my mind worked this morning, I thought "well, all parties are inherently Democrat*ic*, since we're in a Democratic political system, so perhaps it's Democrat Party." Why is losing the "ic" so bad? What am I missing, ignoring or overlooking?

BTW: To any liberal who thought that President Obama was a far-left progressive, despite what they saw on Fox News, he was always closer to Reagan than FDR. He modeled himself after Reagan on the campaign trail. The only thing he could have been considered 'far left' on was Iraq... but he wanted to go further in Afghanistan so he's certainly no dove.
Click to expand...

I'd say he compromised a wee bit too far on healthcare reform compared to what he campaigned on, so it's more than simply "check, he did it." But when he was still Senator and voted against the initial version of the Military Commissions Act, then voted in favor of the "revised" version (which didn't change a bloody thing about it), I saw who he was - we don't have genuine ultra liberals in politics anymore (barring the 1-2 anomalies we can all name by now). Centrism is truly about as far left as our politics go anymore - thank the oligarchs for rigging the system in their favor.

We saw the same thing last week when he signed the NDAA.

I think it's slightly insincere to say that most of us see him as an ultraliberal. In reality, since no matter what he does, he's going to be framed as a Communist-Marxist-Muslim-Psycholiberal-Kenyan-Usurper, then I suppose what I'd like to see is him actually go full-throated crazy liberal. Live up to your unavoidable stereotype. It's not like the lambasting from the crazy brigade (the nutty motherfuckers who actually get airtime) could be any worse.
 
It's insane how much we've let paranoia control us since 9/11. I think the terrorists did win, and every time something like the NDAA is signed, it's just pushing the knife in a little deeper. I mean fucking hell, we're willing to give up more and more in the name of security, it's insane.

This song seems to be becoming more and more relevant again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
But since it cross my mind and now I'm called on it, help settle the matter for me once and for all - what is the negative connotation of "Democrat Party"? I don't see it. The way my mind worked this morning, I thought "well, all parties are inherently Democrat*ic*, since we're in a Democratic political system, so perhaps it's Democrat Party." Why is losing the "ic" so bad? What am I missing, ignoring or overlooking?[/quote]

First off, the USA is not, never has been, and likely never will be a democracy. The founding fathers were scared to death of the "will of the people" and so established the country as a 'representative republic'. Likewise, the two major parties are not truly democratic either, at least when it comes to selecting presidential nominees.

The pejorative of "Democrat Party" is to suggest that it is merely a name, whereas the term "Democratic Party" brings with it the connotation that the party is truly democratic (it's not fully). Thus, some on the right dont want that connotation being made and have just used "Democrat Party". Furthermore, it's at best condescending to, as the opposition, simply choose to disregard the official name of the party and call them what you want. It's childish and petty.



I'd say he compromised a wee bit too far on healthcare reform compared to what he campaigned on, so it's more than simply "check, he did it."
Click to expand...

As I said, i dont think he went as far with some things as many on the left would have liked (particularly the far left). But, my brain being a bit fuzzy on the subject, what did the final bill include/exclude that was different than what he campaigned on? Aside, of course, from the individual mandate. I dont remember him campaigning on a public option (though he might have) and I remember him specifically saying that he wouldnt be trying for a single payer system.

But when he was still Senator and voted against the initial version of the Military Commissions Act, then voted in favor of the "revised" version (which didn't change a bloody thing about it), I saw who he was - we don't have genuine ultra liberals in politics anymore (barring the 1-2 anomalies we can all name by now). Centrism is truly about as far left as our politics go anymore - thank the oligarchs for rigging the system in their favor.

We saw the same thing last week when he signed the NDAA.
Click to expand...

*THAT* is, IMO, the biggest reason to be disappointed in Pres. Obama and the thing I think is most 'opposite' of Candidate Obama. He ran on his background as a Constitutional Scholar, but has treated the Constitution with similar disdain as other presidents. Even more disturbing, in the case of the NDAA, it wouldnt have even mattered if he had vetoed it as there are more than enough votes to override said veto. I still would have liked to see it though.

I think it's slightly insincere to say that most of us see him as an ultraliberal. In reality, since no matter what he does, he's going to be framed as a Communist-Marxist-Muslim-Psycholiberal-Kenyan-Usurper, then I suppose what I'd like to see is him actually go full-throated crazy liberal. Live up to your unavoidable stereotype. It's not like the lambasting from the crazy brigade (the nutty motherfuckers who actually get airtime) could be any worse.
Click to expand...

I've been reading far-left sites like Democratic Underground since the 2008 primary season and you could see posters even then reading more "leftisim" in Mr. Obama than was actually there. Most leftys nowadays would *not* refer to Pres. Obama as even a 'true progressive'. The best they'd say of him is that he's "slightly left of center". But I submit that he's always been there. It was his anti-Iraq war position that made him look more progressive than Sec. Clinton. But really, you could hardly slide a piece of paper between their positions in 2008.

And yes, Democrats as a whole should ignore the names Rush, Hannity et al. will call them. They dont like you no matter what you do so just do what you want. I said that after the so-called "stimulus" bill. Pres. Obama bent to the Republican will to include tax cuts as part of the bill when all leftist economists said it should be more pure spending. Even after this 'capitulation' not one Republican voted for the bill. At that point, if I was Pres. Obama, I'd have told the Republican, fuck you. I tried to work with you and you left me ass to the wind. If I can only count on Democrats, then I'm only going to do Democratic policies. I'm disappointed that he didnt recognize that earlier.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Even more disturbing, in the case of the NDAA, it wouldnt have even mattered if he had vetoed it as there are more than enough votes to override said veto. I still would have liked to see it though.[/QUOTE]

I totally disagree. A veto would have likely caused some democrats to flip their vote and support the leader of their party.
 
Ugh, are we really going to argue about whether the U.S. is a democracy again? I thought we already had that asinine argument.

Anyway, the center is a safe place. Candidates like to take the talk to the far ends when they're running because it riles up the base. Once they're elected they seem to stay fairly center, wavering a little left or right. Hell even Dubya wasn't as right as he could have been. No one really has the courage to tell the other side to fuck off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top