The Republican Noise Machine And It’s Enemy, Reality
Tweet
For the last 5 or so years, the conservative movement and their political representatives in the Republican party had free reign over the national narrative. If a Republican said it the media believed it, and as the press crowded out any even remotely dissenting voice our national conversation was under control from essentially one perspective.
But increasingly, this tactic does not work anymore. I’m not sure what to attribute it to, and its probably no single entity that has brought about this dropping of scales from our nation’s eyes but I’m sure things like the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and the drowning of New Orleans has something to do with it.
What is intriguing now is seeing the noise machine trying to crank something up. I’m sure you all remember the Terri Schiavo episode, where the media at first was certain that we would be “divided” over the issue and that through the combined efforts of President Bush and the criminal Republican congress, waves would be made. Except that we weren’t divided. With the exception of the thirty-percenter dead enders who would support a conservative or Republican if they ate a live baby on tv (“The baby had it coming!”), most of us in the rational world saw an undue government intrusion on a private family matter. The Republicans were, once again, in our bedrooms.
After the corrupt Republican congress was deposed from power last year as the public rejected its protection of pedophiles, lack of oversight, and cozy relationship with the criminal element, President Bush responded by proposing a “new” strategy for Iraq. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, etc. trumpeted this change of direction while attacking the Democrats for not capitulating to the Republican narrative. The public did not budge in favor of the Republican narrative. They mostly saw it for what it is: more of the same. Then the conservative press tried to push the meme that the “surge is working”, yet they had the misfortune to tie this latest bit of propaganda to the same moment where U.S. troop deaths are the only thing, sadly, that is “surging” in Iraq.
Now, with Majority Leader Reid’s statement that we cannot win this war militarily because of its ill-conceived planning and execution by the Commander in Chief (aka George W. Bush), the push is on to give the appearance of a groundswell of resistance to Sen. Reid and the Democratic leadership. The most recent stamp of “legitimacy” on this groundswell are two statements – one from Sen. James Inhofe and another from Rep. Duncan Hunter. This is how you know that there’s no there there. When you need to enlist the most ridiculous global warming denier and a front-man for anti-choice crazies as your voices of sanity, well…
As Rep. Murtha has said for months, the American people are way ahead of the congress on these issues. The people of this country, confronted with the reality of the Bush years, have no use for the dream world fabricated by the conservative noise machine. It’s as fake as the news the White House paid for. Beyond the last hangers-on, the dead enders who concoct bizarre conspiracy theories in the fashion of their idealogical forbearer, Joe McCarthy, the Emperor has no clothes.
65 Responses to “The Republican Noise Machine And It’s Enemy, Reality”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Nice post, Oliver. Lengthy, some polysyllabic words, some links, name dropping.
Good work.
Anything new?
Nah.
And yet, responding to this blog is your whole life.
“Anything new?”
Any real response?
Nah.
You’re just going to dismiss it without bringing up a single specific complaint as if your opinion actually carried any weight with people who possess triple-digit IQs.
poor guy is really struggling. must suck to be him.
I think the rightie bloggers, stuck out on a limb and increasingly out of the mainstream, are getting more organized with help from the GOP groups in an attempt to push back. Trying to do it with rapidly shrinking support from the public may cost them.
“Hey, Rush, and Malkin and Fox News and Captain Kirk Lite says Reid has to go for saying we’ve lost in Iraq.”
“Well, haven’t we?”
“I guess you are right. Why do I even listen to those hot heads.”
“Probably habit. Why don’t you try watching The Daily Show or Olbermann instead.. They’re funnier than Fox.”
“I might do that.”
For the last 5 or so years, the conservative movement and their political representatives in the Republican party had free reign over the national narrative.
How many times are you mistakenly going to refer to political ideologies as ‘movements.’? Sweet Jeebus.
Ideology: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
Movement: A series of actions or activities intended or tending toward a particular end
Get it right already for crying out loud.
If a Republican said it the media believed it, and as the press crowded out any even remotely dissenting voice our national conversation was under control from essentially one perspective.
That’s the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read. When one side doesn’t get their way, they whine that the media has it in for them.
I’m sure you all remember the Terri Schiavo episode, where the media at first was certain that we would be “divided” over the issue
You have evidence of the media saying the country would be ‘divided’ over the issue?
most of us in the rational world saw an undue government intrusion on a private family matter. The Republicans were, once again, in our bedrooms.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll stay out of your bedroom (not that I want to see what goes on in there) if you and the rest of your liberal cohorts stay out of my wallet. Deal?
After the corrupt Republican congress was deposed from power last year
If you want Oliver, for your next birthday or Christmas, I’ll send you a dictionary. You realize that by using the word ‘deposed’, you’re insulting the very voters that decided to vote Democrat. To depose somebody is to forcibly remove them from office. It has nothing to do with democracy.
Now, with Majority Leader Reid’s statement that we cannot win this war militarily
Harry Reid did not state, “we cannot win.” He said, “We lost.” Don’t try to help Reid who is now backpedaling over his statement. He said what he believed.
To that end, it was a completely irresponsible statement for a Senate Majority Leader to make, especially when we still have men and women over there fighting. It was in fact, a disgraceful thing to say and anybody that supports Reid for saying it is also a disgrace. I don’t care whether you think he’s right or not, a man in his position shouldn’t be saying such things. But if he does, then he should say on the floor of the Senate who has won if we truly lost.
Harry Reid was wrong. He should have said we are losing this battle and as long as we are losing this battle we will continue to jeopardize our ability to win the war on terror.
“I don’t care whether you think he’s right or not, a man in his position shouldn’t be saying such things.”
So even if Reid was one hundred percent right, that we’ve lost this war, he shouldn’t have said anything?
God forbid anyone in this country should actually speak the truth about anything, especially our leaders.
Geez what a disaster it would be for George Bush and his supporters to have to listen to the actual truth. What a disgrace it would be if any of them actually had to face directly the consequences of the policies they advocated and put into action.
Seriously, Jay. Who won in Iraq? You wanna say the terrorists? Ya, right. Iraq is such a fucked up messed that no one has fucking “won” it. The place will be a war torn mess for a decade at least whether we stay or go. But actually saying this, actually suggesting that Bush has so totally failed as a commander in chief that the best we can hope for in Iraq is just a decade of contained chaos and violence, that’s what’s disgraceful. Creating the actual scenario itself, however, is what? Leadership? Please. What a hack.
In the title: “It’s” when it should be “Its”.
That’s a loss of two points for incorrect usage.
“How many times are you mistakenly going to refer to political ideologies as ‘movements.’?”
“The American people are no longer on the defensive. I believe the conservative movement deserves some credit for this.”
–Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1985
I don’t know anyone, liberal or conservative, who thinks there’s no conservative movement in this country. Jay is the only one. I also don’t see why he plays this weird semantic game. The goal of the conservative movement is to get conservatives elected and get conservative policy enacted. Everyone agrees but Jay.
Also, George Bush lost the war in Iraq. You can tell it’s true from the way conservatives freak out when we say it.
George Bush lost the war in Iraq.
Seriously, Jay. Who won in Iraq? You wanna say the terrorists? Ya, right. Iraq is such a fucked up messed that no one has fucking “won” it.
Oh please. Save that kind of “We lost, but nobody has won here” kind of crap for the movies.
This is reality here. If the US has “lost” in Iraq, then somebody has won and if the fucking ‘truth’ is so damned important than people like Harry Reid should be able say on the Senate floor who won. If not, then its just a bunch of partisan horseshit.
“This is reality here.”
Um, ya. That’s why you so quickly named the “winner.” Is it “The Terrorists,” Jay? Really? Would that be the Sunni terrorists, the Shia terrorists, the secular Baathist terrorists, the Jihadist terrorists? Etc. Etc.
And even if you want to declare “The Terrorists” the “winner” doesn’t “reality” dictate that we, as Americans, answer the question of who allowed them to win? Want to answer that one? Oh right. It wasn’t the guys actually in charge, you know, the Commander in Chief. It was the elite liberal media and Harry Reid. Cuz this is “reality.”
“Save that kind of ‘We lost, but nobody has won here’ kind of crap for the movies.”
Oh and ya, because ambiguity and a lack of resolution are typical of movie endings. Jeezus.
Bush lost the war. The winner has yet to be determined, but it looks likely to be the Shia. What’s Jay arguing about, now?
I’m not sure what to attribute it to,
Personally, Ollie, I credit Clinton for getting all up in Chris Wallace’s grille.
And a Democratic majority in congress…
Anybody see the Bill Moyers thing last night?
“What’s Jay arguing about, now?”
Apparently he thinks that in “reality” there are always clear cut winners and losers while in the movies, it’s never certain at the end who won or lost. Who knew.
Ignoring polls, CNN’s Kagan, Greenfield assessed public opinion in Schiavo case
CNN.com posted misleading graph showing poll results on Schiavo case
O’Reilly, Morris falsely painted Schiavo case as battle between religious, secular Americans
movement: “An organized effort by supporters of a common goal”
932 references to the “conservative movement” from National Review
100 references to the “conservative movemet” from The Weekly Standard
534 references to the “conservative movement” from the NY Times
752 references to the “conservative movement” from the Washington Post
The Heritage Foundation: “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement”
We have some lovely parting gifts, including some kinda canned meat.
Winners: the Iraqi Shia, Iran, al Qaeda, Kurds, theocrats.
Losers: Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi progressives, Iraqi civil society, democrats, America.
By that I mean Iraqi democrats.
Perhaps I should rephrase, for the less subtle among you: Oliver, I certainly have been posting here for quite a while, and I thank you. And while you do a great job of finding and reporting news that is of importance to the left, you have little or no knowledge of the conservative ideology.
Thus, you believe that centrist politics is conservative. You believe that all Republicans are either liberal (OK) or conservative (mostly conservative — not OK). You believe that fundamentalist Christians have an inordinate amount of power in the Republican Party. You believe the conservative movement within the republican Party is the same as the conservative ideology held by many Republicans. You believe that because racists themselves believe — wrongly — that they have found a home in the Republican Party, that they are welcome there, and that there is something in the Republican Party platform that reflects that change [of course, when the black Republicans left their party for the Democratic Party in in 1932, they did so in their own self interest, I suppose].
All of these beliefs are mistaken. Yet you have trumpeted them to every hill and valley for years. So, you ask, why do I keep posting here? Why not? Should I be typing, “That’s right, Michele” or “You tell ‘em, Misha” or “Go get ‘em, Pamela!” every day?
I want to challenge you all. I want you all to realize that conservatives are not what you say we are, and more importantly, that we are not sheeple, waiting to be led around by the nose by which ever left wing demagogue the New York Times appoints as your leader.
Those “beliefs” as you state them are supported by fact. You say fundies aren’t the backbone of the party, then explain – the presidency of Bush along with John McCain’s flip flop to kiss Falwell’s ass. Explain the southern strategy and ongoing Republican efforts to keep the black vote down. You need evidence to say something is mistaken. This is what you do not understand. You can’t substitute feelings for facts.
You guys are the ultimate sheep. Progressives, even when in power, are constantly challenging our leaders (ask President Clinton). We don’t ever have the sort of blind cult following cons have with people like Reagan and GWB.
Thus, you believe that centrist politics is conservative.
Used to be. Now, not so much.
You believe that fundamentalist Christians have an inordinate amount of power in the Republican Party.
And you’re saying they don’t?
Cite you references, sir!
“centrist politics is conservative”
Well, the centrism of Washington certainly is. It is as follows: economically conservative, aggressively militaristic on foreign policy. Only in the social area is Washington centrism liberal. That’s two out of three, so calling it on balance conservative is fair, I think, especially given the way Washington centrists treat Republican with a deference that they never show to Democrats.
“..we are not sheeple…”
He says without irony:
The label seems to have originated among conspiracy theorists in the United States of a far right political persuasion. The Wall Street Journal first reported the label in print in 1984, where its reporter encountered the word used by the proprietor of an American Opinion bookstore affiliated with the John Birch Society.[1] In this usage, taxpayers were derided for their perceived blind conformity, as opposed to the conspiracy theorists and tax protesters who thought independently. “Sheeple” are people who pay their taxes and accept what the government and the mass media tell them. [2] A piece of folk poetry circulating among conspiracy theorists puts this usage in a nutshell:
Oh yes, I am a sheeple, and oh so proud to be.
I am way too smart to believe in a conspiracy.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple
Why in the world should I provide evidence? You guys have been saying, and repeating the exact same crap, for years, without evidence. Why would I need evidence now?
the presidency of Bush along with John McCain’s flip flop to kiss Falwell’s ass
That’s not even grammatical. And Falwell is one man. If Bush or McCain had any opinion at all, they would agree with someone: Dobson, Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Osteen — somebody! That’s nonsense (proof by sound bite is nonsense)!
You believe that fundamentalist Christians have an inordinate amount of power in the Republican Party.
And you’re saying they don’t? {and not that I said “inordinate”, as in “You exaggerate their importance”, like Republicans (some) exaggerate the importance of unions in the Democratic Party
I’m saying they don’t…
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/25/opinion/web-0225right.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washington/15dobson.html?ex=1305345600&en=bae0ae2b11f1dba5&ei=5088
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html?ex=1330059600&en=95cfbe147d903c79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You’re saying they do?
Cite your references
What I’m saying, AGH, is that what an objective observer would call centrist politics, you call conservative. That’s why WaPo is no longer liberal, Lieberman is a traitor, all Republicans (even the “northeasterners”) are conservative.
The backbone of the entire presidency of George W. Bush is thanks to the Christian Right – Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, etc. The very article you link to cites the religious right’s veto power over the GOP nomination!
Well, I couldn’t find it with the server broken, and it wasn’t in the article I did find.
Given your penchant for “quoting” things that aren’t there [see "The Washington Times loves Robert E. Lee" smear], we’ll just pretend it says , The Christian Right is sorry that they never had veto power over the Republican nomination
From the second paragraph: “Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.”
Why are you so stupid?
A “pivotal stop” is not exactly “veto power”. {Iowa, for example, is a :pivotal stop”)
Third paragraph:
Conclusion (quoting Norquist — not a preacher)
Why are you so fucking rude? Can’t you stand some constructive criticism?
This may be your blog, but that doesn’t mean you’re infallible.
What does anything you have ever typed have in common with constructive criticism?
Grover Norquist is completely insane, so I don’t think that helps either.
“He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records…”
Alert Jay that he’s got to get Grover Norquist a dictionary too. He thinks there’s such a thing as the “conservative movement” … what the hell is he thinking, doesn’t he know what those words mean?
“Although little known outside the conservative movement,….
…any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement….
Dammit!, there’s that word again!
Yes, as others have noted, your criticism has never been constructive. You make all kinds of arguments based on shoddy to no evidence, accuse anyone to the left of Hitler of being a socialist insurrector and make wild proclamations like you did before the 2006 elections of Democrats being rejected at the polls.
I can always tell when I’m right — the subject changes.
Note to frameone and Duros: I’m not Jay.
I know the difference between a leftist, a centrist, and a rightist, and I was wrong about the 2006 elections — as you were about 2000, 2002 and 2004.
I don’t remember calling you stupid. But, of course, this is your blog, and if you allow any and every one else to call me every manner of vile and filthy name, then why not you, also?
Set that example of civil discourse — I, for one, will be glad to follow. Until you ban the conservative.
“I don’t remember calling you stupid. But, of course, this is your blog, and if you allow any and every one else to call me every manner of vile and filthy name, then why not you, also?
Set that example of civil discourse — I, for one, will be glad to follow. Until you ban the conservative.”
Frank, why don’t you cry some more about us mean ol’ liberals calling you names? Like this guy, for example…
“hey,mambochicken: fuck you and the horse that rode in on you…
Browbeat THIS, shithead!
Now sigh, child!
Posted by: fd10801 | Jan 22, 2007 5:55:54 PM”
You gave up your license to complain about the discourse on this blog long ago, Frank. Stop it, you hypocrite.
What? There’s no conservative movement?
Hooray! It was just a dream! An awful, terrible, hideous, nightmare of a dream! Thank googness!
Note to frameone and Duros: I’m not Jay.
That much is clear, Frank. However, I don’t think either of us was talking to/about you.
Another thread all about Frank. Don’t get sucked in to the abyss that is FrankWorld.
Progressives, even when in power, are constantly challenging our leaders (ask President Clinton).
Bwahahahahahahaha!!! That is the most hilarious thing I have ever read. Oliver, if Bill Clinton said, “Get on the floor, on your back and open your mouth so I can shit in it” you and other progressives would be saying, “Ahhhhh!!!” before Clinton dropped his drawers.
Um, ya. That’s why you so quickly named the “winner.” Is it “The Terrorists,” Jay? Really? Would that be the Sunni terrorists, the Shia terrorists, the secular Baathist terrorists, the Jihadist terrorists? Etc. Etc.
I’m not the one saying we lost dumb-ass. You and Harry Reid are. You can tell us who lost.
Christ, you’re so dumb.
Well, that’s raising the level of discourse, isn’t it?
Yes, the congressional Dems in 1992 just bent over backwards for President Clinton. I love it when you go substance free, Jay. It’s a hallmark of the conservative movement.
Frank, I call you stupid because you’re constantly comparing us to Nazis, socialists, and more. Cease that and maybe I’ll stop. What were my predictions about past elections? You don’t know cause you just pulled it out your ass. I thought we would win in 2000 – we won the most votes. I thought 2002 would be horrible because we capitulated on the war. I was right. I didn’t know how 2004 would turn out, your side won. I felt confident in 2006 while you were telling us about how we would get wiped off the map, I was right. I feel quite confident right now about 2008. If I was a betting man, I’d bet on me if I were playing the odds.
mambochicken: For unprovoked snottiness, condescension and disrespect, no one beats you and frameone. So you can go enjoy a steaming hot cup of STFU — it’s on me…
you’re constantly comparing us to Nazis, socialists, and more
Why not compare you to socialists? Don’t you favor more government in our lives, at the expense of our personal freedom? If that’s not socialism,and saying you favor the Nanny State insults the whole state of Maryland, then how about “statism fans”?
The only time I ever compared anybody to a Nazi was when you exhibited your love affair with government – sponsored science. Give me a name for that, and I’ll use it.
The point of “who would win what” was that your predictions have been wrong in the past. But I am not still hitting you over the head with it 7 months later, and I never called you stupid over it. Period. The rest is all bullshit. How do I know what your predictions were? Because we all want our guy to win. It doesn’t make you stupid — apparently it made me stupid, but not you.
So can it. Conservatives are fair game on your blog, and all the bullshit about tolerance and dissent is just that — bullshit. I can take it, but please stop the nonsensical self – justification.
You all wish I would go away, you wish Doctor P and Jay and Ian would go away, VRWC Drone and Dugger, so you can have the playground all to yourselves.
But, please, please, stop with the “It’s all your fault — you made us do this to you”. It’s so goddam …. liberal!
Fix italics
Frank, my response to you is that I’m not the one bitching about the lack of civility on this blog. My comment was not about you being a foul-mouthed prick, it was about you being a hypocrite. Jesus H. tapdancing Christ, you can’t get anything right.
You’re right, mambochicken. I’ll just treat everyone like I’m treated. Fuck civility — oh, and fuck you.
You treating people with some degree of perceived reciprocity has nothing to do with you being a gigantic, hopeless hypocritical piece of shit, Frank. I don’t care what insults or obscenities you hurl about. Go nuts! Knock yourself out! Just stop being the civility police, for chrissakes. You’re an embarrassment.
“I’m not the one saying we lost dumb-ass.”
Um, jay, i believe i stated that us leaving Iraq doesn’t automatically leave a winnner. We lost iraq because we cannot stabilize it. When we leave it will remain, unstable but at least we won’t be an agitating presence there. No one is going to “win” this fucking mess because chances are Iraq is going to be a disaster for a decade or more …
and jay, only a simple minded loser here’s that we lost in Iraq and automatically thinks there must be a winner. Stop swilling on the right wing bullshit, man. Start trying to think a little.
Oh, someone definitely won- Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwater…
Which prediction have I made that is wrong. Name one. Here’s some free advice: I rarely make predictions and even more rarely predict elections and post around day in and day out on blogs with those predictions.
You posted for almost a year straight here Frank about how Dems were going to lose on election day. You didn’t say it was possible, you said it with a certainty in the same stupid tone you lecture people with when it’s clear you don’t know shit about anything historical (and no, “I’m older therefore I’m absolved of stating things in a historical context does not work here. My own grandfather can’t pull that with me, so why would I allow it with some guy on the Internet?). How could I possibly not post about how amazingly wrong you were in light of that?
If you’re going to go around calling anyone to the left of Bush a communist or Nazi, prepare to be called an idiot with increasing frequency. I banned you specifically because you can’t ever keep on topic, you’re constantly attacking people – not disagreeing with them but attacking them – these very same people emailed me and asked for me to let you back on here. I did so, and I asked you to please for the love of Christ act like a civil and normal human being. I don’t care if you worship Ronald Reagan, but I ask for you to stay on goddamn topic and quit attacking people. It is not hard. I ban cons, I ban liberals. I’m under no obligation to let you post here. I’m being nice. The least you can do is return the freaking favor and not being the boorish drunk in back disrupting the party.
“This is reality here.”
Which is why no-one’s fucking won. Happens a lot in reality. Korean War, 0-0. Great War of Africa, 0-0. Cold War, 1-0 after extra time thanks to an own goal by the Soviet Union.
Reality not clear cut shocker! War actually horrific crime with few or no victors! Thirty percenters shocked! Everyone else shrugs!
“Why not compare you to socialists? Don’t you favor more government in our lives, at the expense of our personal freedom? If that’s not socialism blah blah blah”
That’s not socialism, that’s a partisan distortion of the concept of public services composed by babies like you who just can’t stand the idea of a common good that doesn’t revolve around yourselves.
I am a socialist. It’s not an insult, it’s a political viewpoint. And it’s certainly not the same thing as communism.
NG: You’re not a socialist. And, I know more about socialism and communism than you’ll ever know. You’re a dim bulb. If you had any wealth to share, you’d be as selfish as the next millionaire liberal.
mambochicken: I don’t pretend to be the civility police. Around here? Are you kidding me? All I was saying was, “Stop blaming your incivility on me.” I’m sick of people being being nasty and rude, and then pinning it on me.
When you’re nasty (this time, I mean you) you like to say stupid shit like, “I wasn’t insulting you — I was making an observation”, as if making that observation wasn’t insulting.
When other people insult me, they like to say, “You insulted someone three weeks ago on Thread X, so I get to insult you now. You shouldn’t have done that.”
It goes along with, “You mentioned your children once a few months ago, so I can just nonchalantly insult your parenting skills, when it has nothing whatever to do with the topic”.
And, of course, my two favorites: 1) The random “Eat dick, Frank” which was being hurled at me, when I wasn’t even posting (and was used by someone else, from out of nowhere); and 2) Tied for second, the ever popular, “You’re old, Frank — very, very old”.
In second place? “Get help”.
Oliver, I’m not trying to make this a pissing contest, but I have never called anyone a Nazi. I have commented that the left’s new found love affair with government – sponsored science (stem cell research, global warming, evolution) is frighteningly “Reich like”, but, as you know, it is liberals who compare Bush to Hitler, and there is an unending talk about “propaganda machines” (no names, please) that certainly reminds me that there is something totalitarian about Republicans, and that association is intentional.
But I don’t think Democrats are Nazis. I just don’t.
Socialist / statists — yes.
Looking forward to the Nanny State — yes.
Favoring higher taxes — yes.
Distrustful of free enterprise — yes.
Am I misinterpreting somebody?
How could I possibly not post about how amazingly wrong you were in light of that?
How can you call me “amazingly wrong” without calling me “dumb or daft”? Well, you’re the wordsmith. I’ll leave it to you to puzzle that out.
Am I not? Well that changes everything! Thanks, random guy on the Internet, for making me see the light about my life and my fundamental nature WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING THE FIRST THING ABOUT ME. THAT’S REAAAAAAL CLEVER, THAT IS.
I guess what I’m trying to say is go sit on a landmine you pompous weasel dick.
Frank, since you hate “the nanny state” I’m sure you’re sending back all those social security checks, not driving on the roads and have absolved yourself from the protection of the police force and military.
Whatever Frank, that isn’t what you said. If you can’t even admit to being wrong about the words you yourself wrote, then its useless for anyone trying to talk to you about anything. It’s just so much spitting into the wind. How can anyone expect you to be honest about anything?
For the record, the phrases (which I’ve used) “really, really old” and “ignorant of science” are both descriptive terms. Flattering? Perhaps not. Apt? Certainly. However, it’s doubtful that you can find any evidence to support your claim of me having, literally, a head made of shit. Therefore, your invocation of me as a shithead lacks any sort of descriptive value.
BTW, “Get help” isn’t much of an insult. Damn, you have thin skin. Get a grip on yourself man, stop being so damn whiny.
To get back on topic, I do wish that Jay could explain why there must be a winner in this Iraq debacle. We had an ill-conceived, near-impossible mission headed by a sorry excuse of a President, and we’ve failed. Throw in the damn towel already. Just because we’ve failed doesn’t mean that anyone has succeeded, no more than an idiot like Frank failing to solve a jigsaw puzzle implies success on anyone’s part. Is this really so nuanced and difficult to understand? Keeeeee-rist.
your love affair with government – sponsored science. Give me a name for that, and I’ll use it.
Um, how about government-sponsored science?
Oh yeah… thanks, Duros, for reminding me.
Frank, scientific research that doesn’t have a direct impact on some corporation’s bottom line (i.e., pharmaceutical companies) would never get done if the government didn’t grant money to researchers interested in basic science. Your stupid comment about “government-sponsored science, bursting with derision, is another clear indicator of your utter lack of scientific understanding. Your ignorance boggles my mind.
NG: “Thanks, random guy on the Internet, for making me see the light about my life and my fundamental nature WITHOUT ACTUALLY KNOWING THE FIRST THING ABOUT ME”
NG, you twit, you’ve been doing it to me for, how long now? Get bent… Go see Aqua Teen Force with “s” and beans.
mambochicken: Boggling your mind is quite easy. I wasn’t talking about government sponsored research. I have heard of it, you know (for the record, it’s statements like “your ignorance boggles my mind” which suggest that 1) I’ve never heard of government funded research,and that is insulting, or 2) That perhaps your head does contain a considerable amount of excrement — hence, “shithead” is a descriptive term. Flattering, no. Apt, yes.)
I was referring to judges making determinations on whether or not life begins in the womb, whether or not intelligent design is science; whether or not the government can control CO2; the court’s decidsion on Terri Schiavo; and the like.
The fact that you couldn’t even fathom that I meant something even remotely sensible in my comment says something about your lowered expectations of me — your problem; not my ignorance of science.
And, of course, calling me an idiot in a post addressed to someone else accomplishes what for you?
This just confirms my previous [non - insulting] observational descriptive terms for you: arrogant, condescending, pretentious, and pompous ass.
Oliver, I don’t get Social Security checks. Have “s” check his files on me, and you’ll see that I don’t get Social Security checks.
What do you think now, Oliver?
Mistaken, or stupid?
Dumb or daft?
Instant Karma, and all that.
“I wasn’t talking about government sponsored research.”
Right, I misinterpreted you when you said…
“I have commented that the left’s new found love affair with government – sponsored science (stem cell research, global warming, evolution)…”
Rather, I think you chose a poor choice of words to describe your initial “point.” It doesn’t even make a bit of sense to say that the government sponsors global warming, evolution and the like… even when you’re using the term “sponsor” as meaning “defining the terms of.” You know who says that global warming is a real, human-made problem? Scientists. You know who says that intelligent design is not science? Scientists. You stupid ass.
Not my problem if you can’t type a coherent thought.
mambochicken: stop being a jerk…
Who made the decision that abortion was about privacy, not life, no matter how far along the pregnancy was?
Who made the decision in the Dover, MD IDcase?
Who made the medical decision that Terri Schiavo was clinically dead?
Who made the decision that the EPA could control CO2 emissions?
Not scientists. Scientists presented evidence on both sides. BOTH sides. It was the non – scientist Judge.
Funny, when I don’t understand your gobbledy gook, I’m ignorant.
When you can’t understand my declarative sentences, I “can’t type a coherent thought”.
You’ve got “frameone’s syndrome”: The obsession with winning an argument. Another douchebag whose father kicked his ass when he fucked up. Once in a while, you’re wr-, wr-, wr-, wrong. Get help.
What is it with you and ordering me to see ATHF? I’ve said before that I don’t think it’ll work at longer than 10 minutes a pop.
In stages:
a) Frank says I’m not a socialist for no obvious reason and with no evidence or even apparent understanding of the terms
b) I call him a twat for doing so
c) Frank replies with WAAAAAAAH
Why do we reply to this guy?
Gobbledegook is one word by the way.
Right, there is strong evidence, and many scientists, that support the idea that Terri Schiavo was not brain-dead and that intelligent design is a valid scientific hypothesis. As for your other questions, last time I checked the Supreme Court was in charge of interpreting the Constitution and determining the legality of actions, including abortion. You might as well say, “Who decided that masturbation was legal?” or “Who decided that rape was illegal?” Answer to both questions: “Not scientists!” And the EPA is, in fact, a branch of the government entirely devoted to the regulation of human behavior relating to the environment. Seems that CO2 emissions qualify. Unless you’re arguing that we should just get rid of the EPA… which would also be idiotic.
You can’t win, Frank. You’re a fucking moron. You hold untenable positions. You have no continuity in reasoning from post to post. You’re blind to reality, you are inflexible in your misguided belief structure, and the world has passed you by. It’s over. You’re done.
Oh, and I’m done with you. At least for now. Maybe on another thread I can bitchslap you around a bit more, but this thread is played out. Eat shit, Frank.
“The obsession with winning an argument.”
Oh mercy. Frank, stop parodying yourself, that’s our job.