The Republican party is a cartoon. A living breathing idiotic cartoon.
A RNC member tells Roger Simon that when committee members meet in an extraordinary special session next week, they will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”
These people ran our country for the last decade, is it any wonder why we’re in the situation we’re in?
Having successfully rebranded themselves as the Party of WATBs who serve Limbaugh, they’re probably feeling pretty cocky right now.
The thing that really gets me is that I’m starting to think that cons and people with functioning brains are living in separate worlds.
Do they even know what the word “Socialist” means?
Are they going to drive to these meetings on “Privately” owned roads?
I wonder …
Birchers gone wild
A RNC member tells Roger Simon…
There’s a braintrust.
I came across this today and I found it….. thought provoking.
Reading through the comments was surprising and refreshing (for the most part) for a conservative site.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/05/is_the_conserva.html
Right wing propaganda outlet Politico.com gets their Republican troll Roger Simon to regurgitate the Republican smear point of the day.
In other news, water declared wet!
Some right wing holdouts claim ice actually dry and since ice is made of water then therefore water is dry!
Right wing rebranding of water as dry is subsequently reported by Politico.com’s Roger Simon.
Right wing trolls “Jay Tea”, “Haplo9″, and “Colin” subsequently regurgitate the comment “water is actually dry” for the next seven news cycles completely indifferent to how it discredits everything else they say.
Regurgitate, Rinse, Repeat.
because a) they think that’s what constitutes passing meaningful legislation and b) they believe calling them “Freedom Fries” demonstrates taking effective action.
They’ll be here all week, folks. And try the veal.
Can we start calling them the Christian Conservative party?
Re: Posner’s essay
Conservative Richard Posner: “I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States.”
Could it be the right wing’s repudiation of peer reviewed science?
The right wing’s repudiation of observable reality?
The right wing’s repudiation of basic math?
The right wing’s repudiation of basic economics?
Apparently all of the above.
—————————-
I’d add that the right wing’s “intellectual deterioration” includes:
The profound level of right wing deceitful predaciousness that masquerades as conservative intellectual discourse.
The right wing’s capacity to alter reality to serve their short-sighted greedy interests at the expense of everything and everyone around them.
The only power that the right wing has is “branding” and “rebranding” with manipulative Frank Luntz trigger words.
The entire Republican Party is a giant, constant marketing effort, it’s all the Republicans have: Deceptions wrapped up in manipulative language and pretty images.
Can we start calling them the Christian Conservative party?
How about the Republican Fascist Party?
Too much? How about:
The Republican Corporatist Party?
The RepubliCorporation?
The RepubliCons?
The RepubliCants?
More from ‘Zilla:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/levin/index.html
There actually is a group / party known as the Democratic Socialists of America. They do not consider the Democratic Party to be anything like themselves.
But then, a lot of Republicans don’t believe in the basic principles of a republic, preferring some weird right wing Unitarded Executrix instead, so it’s not uncommon for the same words to be used by different groups in their names.
News Reference,
I have been saying just that for years. I have tried again and again to start a conversation with cons, an HONEST non-insult ladened conversation, about the lack in intelligence or even logic inherent in the talking points.
And then they start with the name calling.
Even here, try to have a conversation with one of them and it takes about 3 posts till they pull one of the games they are so known for hijacks the thread.
1) Posting of some inflammatory retrotic in an attempt to deflect from the fact they are wrong.
2) What I call the “Sez U!” defense. An attempt to drag things off topic by posting a cherry picked of non pertinent opinion post.
3) Lie. ( I see this one a LOT)
4) Deny, deny the racism, deny the ignorance, deny the lack of logic, deny the _________ .
5) insult.
Just once I would like to have a conversation with a con that dose not fall back on one of these excuses for honest debate.
The poster of that piece is a conservative and I think that he and I would disagree with the color of the sky. But I think the debate would be honest and enjoyable. I think that simply from the fact that he has the balls and honestly to call a spade a spade and admit that his own “side” has problems.
But I wounder how long it will be till Rushbo and his cohorts make this guy look like an outcast from PETA.
Republicants claim that government can’t function and every time Republicants get elected they prove Republicants can’t govern.
‘Rebranding’? They’re going to start calling the Democratic Party something, and by the miracle of underwear gnome technology the American people will suddenly twitch, grunt and begin going along with the ‘rebranded’ name?
Magical thinking at its finest.
they will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”
A moniker I promise to wear proudly.
The Republican Corporatist Party?
The RepubliCorporation?
The RepubliCons?
The RepubliCants?
Republico. Or Republicorp.
I always liked ‘The American Taliban’. Has good consciousness-raising qualities.
Grupmyman: I have been saying just that for years. I have tried again and again to start a conversation with cons, an HONEST non-insult ladened conversation, about the lack in intelligence or even logic inherent in the talking points.
And then they start with the name calling.
To be fair, the tactics you list in the remainder of your post aren’t used just by those on the right. Both sides have done a fair amount of name calling, cherry picking, insulting, etc. But I’d agree that the right is more likely to be brazen in their hypocrisy, partisanship and flat out denial of basic facts.
I would love to have someone here representing the right who would engage in reasoned, reasonable discussion. I want my views challenged by someone with a strong, supported argument so that I can either feel more certain of my opinion because it has withstood an effective assault or comfortable with changing it because a rational argument has been presented for doing so.
“I have tried again and again to start a conversation with CONS”…”And then they start with the name calling.”
By your statement you seem to have that a bit backward.
Because shut up, that’s why!
Wow, isn’t this convenient. I don’t even have to say anything any more — Newsy is cheerfully pronouncing my opinions for me.
That they have no resemblance to reality seems only a minor inconvenience. He’s gotta get his pre-emptive denunciations out there, people!
Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot I was the one on the side of those who are just interested in calling people names. I was confused by Newsy’s… well, just calling people names.
Of course, what’s going on has NO resemblance to socialism — the government controlling (and even owning) whole swaths of the economy.
Just ask any banker. Or any credit-card issuer. Or anyone else in the financial industry. Or 2/3 of the Big Three auto makers. Or, shortly, anyone in the health care business. And, possibly, anyone in the newspaper business. They’ll give the right answer.
And if they don’t, then they’ll have to answer to the IRS, the White House Press Corps, and legions of “community organizers.”
Yup, no socialism here.
J.
Sean D. Martin,
Have you ever seen a con admit that something was wrong?
Just that, no attempt at false equivalence, no insult, overt or covert? I have not. Though I have done so many times. To this day I have never seen it happen.
Look at this very site, and I have to admit that is is a bit more civil here than most places I have been on the net.
I can only speak for myself but the vitriolic response (made more often than the non response, but less so than the lie.) is always delivered by a con, under the guise of “Speaking their mind” and when met with logical self defense, cry lit a little child about how someone is being mean to them.
Though I do take your point both sides are guilty of nastiness. But I have NEVER seen so mush borderline psychotic vileness than I have seen on the right.
Collin Powell is the perfect example. I myself served under him command. I don’t agree with most of the political positions but he served he put on the uniform, raised his right hand, picked up a gun and served when and where most people haven’t the will or courage. And for that if no other reason he had my respect.
Opinion on the left he may be a war criminal.
But on the right he is ACCUSED of being a traitor.
Opinion VS. Accusation
There in is the difference.
As to your latter point I agree with it.
The thing that really gets me is that I’m starting to think that cons and people with functioning brains are living in separate worlds.
This is what “Going Galt” really is– when you alienate everyone who is capable of thinking, anyone knowledgeable, and anyone talented, you get left with the unthinking, unorganized rabble who don’t know how to make things “go.” The Republicans have effectively alienated everyone who knew anything about policy or politics.
william,
Proof please.
I will never stop fighting against a tyrannical government that tries to give me unemployment insurance! Like Hitler did!
There is an article at Slate.com that discusses conservative Judge Richard Posner’s maturing perspective on the incestuously corrupt nature of CEO compensation.
It’s an interesting read, especially in light of Richard Posner’s history as one of the founders of the right wing “Chicago School” of economics.
From the article:
“Posner wrote that there are growing indications that CEO compensation “is excessive because of the feeble incentives of board of directors to police compensation. … Directors are often CEOs of other companies and naturally think that CEOs should be well paid. And often they are picked by the CEO.” He then examined the conflicts inherent in the process of CEO compensation determination, concluding that “[c]ompetition … can’t be counted on to solve the problem because the same structure of incentives operates on all large corporations and similar entities, including mutual funds” [emphasis added].”
…
“Posner concluded that while judges shouldn’t directly review corporate salaries, evidence of unreasonable compensation could be evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty.”
As I read it, excessive compensation by executives, even when okayed by the board, is legally challengeable in right winger Posner’s view.
When investors get screwed by the collusion of the board and the executives to rip off the investors through excessive ‘compensation’ given the executives, those investors have grounds to legally challenge that excessive compensation as a failure of the executives (and the board) to do what’s in the legal best interest of the investors.
It’s a direct repudiation of the right wing’s marketing soundbites.
But in a soundbite culture where the Republican Marketing Party is the master, reality often loses.
That’s why right wing deceivers like Frank Luntz, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly get paid the big bucks.
Right wingers are all about lying for the money.
Or rather, right wingers are all about the money, and since lying pays, right wingers are excellent liars.
Wouldn’t it be funny if the Republicon Marketing Party’s rebranding of the Democratic Party as the Socialist Party actually popularized socialism?
The Republican Taliban Party?
Of course, what’s going on has NO resemblance to socialism — the government controlling (and even owning) whole swaths of the economy.
Jay Tea, you do understand that these industries came to the government looking for bailouts, right?
You do understand that none of these business were forced to take the government’s money, right?
You do understand that whenever you ask people for huge sums of money, those people are probably going to have a few things to say in how you use that money, right?
In other words, the government did not forcibly seize these companies. You understand that right?
“Republicants claim that government can’t function and every time Republicants get elected they prove Republicants can’t govern.” News Reference
Newsie, do you honestly feel that since you bastardized someone else’s quote, that it wasn’t necessary to somehow cite it as belonging to someone else?
Wouldn’t it be funny if the Republicon Marketing Party’s rebranding of the Democratic Party as the Socialist Party actually popularized socialism?
Yeah, it would. Wear it proudly, I say.
Challenge anyone who uses Socialism as a curse word to explain what’s so bad about it.
“Grumpyman”, there are still good Republicans, despite the Republican leadership’s overwhelming pattern of predacious deceit and the right wing media narcissists shrieking insults.
Some Republicans are “true believers” who feel their beliefs are under assault.
The rest of the Republicans just got suckered.
I try to show patience with the believers and the conned.
But most of the right wing posters here are incredibly dishonest.
Tell them a fact and they either ignore it or repudiate it dogmatically.
Provide evidence that repudiates their lie and they change the subject.
After enough posts trying to address their falsehoods I stop assuming they don’t understand and stop being polite.
For the record: I’m an independent with a conservative streak and I’m more conservative than any the right wing trolls posting here, so I won’t be gamed by their attempt to demand that I follow their demands for “Liberal” patience or “Liberal” courtesy.
Liberal courtesy and liberal patience has been systematically taken advantage of by right wing predators.
As an independent conservative I have NO patience or courtesy for right wing predators spouting falsehoods.
While I’ll distinguish between the Conned Republicans and the RepubliCon Leadership, I’m comfortable calling the Republicon Party the Republican Marketing Party, the Republican Sociopath Party, the Republican Pirate Party, or any other strong language that correctly labels what the Republican Party has degenerated into.
As an independent conservative I’m okay with applying right wing language to the Republicon Leadership or to right wing trolls spouting falsehoods and nonsense.
And it’s always incredibly amusing and ironic when right wingers complain that their own rhetoric is used against them.
News Reference,
I have made no opinion known, about how your or another posters relationship has or has not developed.
And I myself give little quarter to most of the ignorant pronouncements from cons. Nor to the negatively tinged responses that appear in answer to simple questions.
Truth be told most of the liberal people I know are more CONSERVATIVE in how they live their own lives than the most right wing nut jobs I have seen. The difference is where the make a line in the sand. So yes I understand where you stand and if you took offense to my post know that none was meant.
Peace Be With You.
Grumpyman,
Read the two sentences of yours that I hilighted and tell me if you see a disconnect.
I’ll give you a hint: first you call someone a “con” then you proceed to whine that “they start with name calling”.
I think there is a saying that has something to do with people who live in glass houses…
“fafaroo”: “Jay Tea, you do understand…”
This is the liberal courtesy that loses me as an independent conservative.
“fafaroo” is exercising liberal patience and liberal courtesy by assuming that right winger “Jay Tea”, who has consistently shown that he doesn’t understand much at all, might be able to understand something if it’s explained to him slowly, clearly, and repeatedly.
In the end, “fafaroo” is taking an effective approach, ultimately it’s not about right winger “Jay Tea’s” persistent failure to understand, it’s about communicating to the larger audience of readers, and repeatedly, clearly correcting the errors and falsehoods that right wingers like “Jay Tea” perpetually disseminate.
My response is that right winger “Jay Tea” is one of the Con artists.
Right winger “Jay Tea” is liar.
Right winger “Jay Tea” is a sociopath without a conscience who lies so reflexively and so often that his own lies often contradict his own arguments but he still always manages to avoid the truth.
“Jay Tea’s” mother would be ashamed of him if she were still around, God rest her soul.
But that’s just me speaking as an independent conservative.
I always refer to the GOP as the Grand Old Perverts. It seems to fit.
“Grumpyman”: “most of the liberal people I know are more CONSERVATIVE in how they live their own lives”
And this the greatest irony of all.
Liberalism has become much more conservative than the purported “conservative” movement.
Liberals want to conserve the planet’s ecosystems.
Liberals want to conserve earth’s climate.
Liberals want to conserve finite resources like oil and even water.
Liberals want to conserve the sanctity of two loved ones making a committment to each other.
Liberals want to conserve species.
Liberals want to conserve wildlife.
Liberals want to conserve America’s moral standing in the world.
Liberals want to conserve America’s respect for science.
Liberals want to conserve the American middle class.
Liberals want to conserve America’s children’s futures.
Liberals have a good argument that LIBERALS ARE THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES.
Yup, no socialism here.
Yup, it’s probably where all the WMDs are.
Liberals want to conserve the purity of the water we drink.
Liberals want to conserve the purity of the air we breathe.
Liberals want to conserve the purity of the food we eat.
Liberals want to conserve the purity of the land we live on.
Liberals want to conserve the purity of the prescription drugs we take.
Liberals ARE more conservative than the purported “conservative” party on many if not most issues.
william,
If that is the way you take it that is your right.
Let me ask you this have you ever used the term “Lib”? “Lefty”? “Dem”?
If you think by con I’m trying to say “Ex-convict” you are wrong. If I meant that I would have said that.
I am not a con.
If I am to insult someone that is what I will do there will be no couching, hedging or attempt at subtlety.
If you are offended you have my apology for your misunderstanding of my meaning.
Other than that …
Peace Be With you.
Liberals want to conserve the Rule of Law.
Liberals want to conserve the Constitution.
Liberals want to conserve the Bill of Rights.
The RepubliConvict Party?
Libby, Abramoff, Cunningham, et al.
The Republican Grand Old Perverts Party?
Vitter, Craig, Foley, et al.
The RepubliTorture Party, or just the Torture Party?
Cheney, Yoo, Jay Bybee, et al.
From the radio just now:
Greedpublicans
Read the two sentences of yours that I hilighted and tell me if you see a disconnect.
Yeah, okay, we get it, thanks.
Buh-bye.
The Republican Communist Party.
RE: Renaming the Republican Party:
The Regressive Party?
The Anti-Democratic Party?
From the radio just now:
The Banana Republic Party?
The New Con Party?
The Old Con Party?
The Con Artist Party?
The Anti-Party.
Kind of like Antimatter.
Thank heavens Newsy’s avoiding name-calling. That could get ugly.
Newsy, why do you even pretend that you’re interested in dialogue? You are so predictable. You start off with generic insults and slams. Then, when addressed, you go off on specific insults and trot out your standard laundry list of complaints and criticisms. If someone reads one thread you comment on, they’ve read them all. It’s the same old tripe, wrapped up in a different colored ribbon each time.
The really fun part is how you always decry the lack of civil conversation and respectful discussion — usually crammed in between two barrels of invective.
J.
But back on topic: several recipients of bailout money WERE pressured into accepting it. And not a single one of them was told that there would be strings and conditions of this magnitude — this was all done ex post facto. GM, for example, was never told that would have to get rid of its CEO at the first bailout, or that that was even on the table. Financial houses are only now being told that the government will be deciding how much they pay their employees — even if it means setting aside contracts that spelled out compensation packages. Obama is telling Chrysler how much it can spend on advertising.
This should come as no big surprise to anyone who has ever dealt with — or heard about dealings with — loan sharks, or found themselves in business with the Mafia.
The idiots here are those in the businesses that looked at Obama and found themselves filled with thoughts of Hope and Change and Compassion and didn’t realize that once they were partnered with the government, it would soon be made abundantly clear that the “partnership” wasn’t one of equals. It was that of vassals to their liege lord — and that liege lord would rule with an iron fist should it please him.
To their credit, some banks wanted to give back the bailout money once they realized just what the deal entailed. And the Treasury Department — happy with the fish on the hook — started throwing up all kinds of obstacles to keep that from happening.
I guess it’s no coincidence that Chicago also gave the nation Al Capone, Sam Giancana, Richard Daley, and a host of other incredibly corrupt scumbags and thugs.
J.
That being said, the idea of trying to “rebrand” the Democratic party with a new name is really, really stupid. One rule I’ve always thought a good one was to refer to a group by the name they’ve chosen for themselves, unless it’s a grossly misleading and deceptive one.
This is stupid name-calling, about as sensible as… well, half of what Newsy comes up with. (The better half. OK, the less sucky half, to be perfectly candid.)
Makes me wonder if Joe Biden is secretly advising the RNC…
J.
But back on topic [bitches about bailout
You keep using this word “on topic.” I do not think you mean what you think it means.
Your party is full of a bunch of fools and lunatics, Jay Tea. They alienated and drove out the smart people, leaving only extrmists, kooks, and lunatics like you left. This is the last gasp of the “dead enders” and we mock it as yet another example of what fools you all have been.
According to the theory of political relativity, from the (extreme) point of today’s movement conservative, Democrats are indeed “socialist”.
And socialism leads to fear, which leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And hate leads to suffering. There is also Master Obama… he’s tricksy. Master Obama betrayed us. Wicked, tricksy, false. We ought to wring his filthy little neck. Kill him! Kill him! Kill them both! And then we take the precious… and we be the master! Shh. Shh. Too risky. They will hear. And then they will mock. And laugh. And mock some more.
several recipients of bailout money WERE pressured into accepting it. And not a single one of them was told that there would be strings and conditions of this magnitude — this was all done ex post facto.
Mr. Tea is right for once.
BTW, Mr. Tea, who was the socialist running the show back then?
Actually, tyro, my party is just as popular, just as sane, just as intelligent, and just as entrenched as it ever was.
That being the party of “me,” thank you very much.
You couldn’t PAY me enough to run (or even belong to) either party.
J.
The Right Wing trolls don’t seem to get that their persistent dishonesty only works in a vacuum and even then only when people aren’t paying attention or aren’t well informed.
A quick round up of right winger “Jay Tea’s” Lies Du Jour:
“several recipients of bailout money WERE pressured into accepting it”
And those that made that claim made it about being pressured by Republican President Bush administration officials.
And they were under no obligation to concede to that pressure.
And the vast MAJORITY of recipients of the bailout money had no pressure by government to accept the money at all. To them, it was just ‘free money’ that they assumed was gifts to them from the Republican Bush administration without any “strings or conditions”.
Maybe they should have read the fine-print of the contract (you know, “the contract” that right wingers worship right up until it works against them).
“GM, for example, was never told that would have to get rid of its CEO at the first bailout”
Exactly. GM was told that to get a second helping of government “bailout” they would have to retire GM’s CEO.
They were not forced to do this. They could have kept the “first [government] bailout” bundle of cash and went on their merry way.
But GM wanted another serving of government bailout cash and so GE handsomely retired GM’s CEO.
If I recall correctly GM’s CEO walked away with multi-millions even while right wingers were screaming that blue collar workers needed to take pay cuts.
“Financial houses are only now being told that the government will be deciding how much they pay their employees— even if it means setting aside contracts that spelled out compensation packages.”
Financial houses that wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t taken government bailout money.
Since American taxpayers are footing their salaries and are the only ones keeping those employee’s companies afloat, the American taxpayers have a right, as “investors”, to have a say in how those employees are being compensated.
Republicans created that precedent when they demanded that the contracts be shredded for auto workers that earn tiny fractions of what the “financial houses” employees earn.
Right wingers are fine with shredding contracts for blue collar workers but when it comes to over-paid executives and the money changers, suddenly contracts are ’sacred.’
It’s Republican’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
Those errors were in just the first paragraph of right winger “Jay Tea’s” five paragraph rant.
In the second paragraph “Jay Tea” implies that the American government of “WE the People” is similar to loan sharks and the Mafia.
Actually, the right wing legalized “loan sharks”.
I’m for “WE the People” making usury (unconscionable interest rates) illegal. Maybe we’ve found common ground, “Jay Tea”?
And last I checked, it was the Democratic Party under JFK’s government that took on the Mafia and the Mafia lost.
From there right winger “Jay Tea” degenerates into a mad socialist rant against “vassals to their liege lord”.
Apparently “Jay Tea” is against America’s democratic republic.
Why do right wingers hate America, “Jay Tea”?
To continue with the list of how Liberals are the True Conservatives:
Liberals want to conserve the lives of children.
Liberals want to conserve the lives of manual workers.
Liberals want to conserve the lives of Americans.
Liberals want to conserve the lives of foreigners.
Liberals want to conserve the lives. Period.
And how do Liberals conserve lives? Liberal regulation that eliminates or at least minimizes poisoned water, poisoned air, poisoned food, poisoned toys (lead paint), and poisoned products.
To their credit, some banks wanted to give back the bailout money once they realized just what the deal entailed.
Sure, some banks wanted to give back the bailout money. So far, not a single one can afford to do so.
And the Treasury Department — happy with the fish on the hook — started throwing up all kinds of obstacles to keep that from happening.
You mean obstacles like telling the banks they can’t borrow money from the government to repay the government?
Mr. Tea, please.
To add to the neo-name of the neo-Republican Party:
The Misleading Party.
The Deceptive Party.
The DeceptiCon Party.
Right winger “Jay Tea” calls it “stupid name-calling”.
I don’t disagree. I’ve been listening to the Republican Party denigrate the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party” FOR DECADES.
Adult Republican Party Leaders have, FOR DECADES, repeatedly denigrated the Democratic Party’s name.
And last year adult Republican Party Leaders repeatedly called the Democratic Presidential Candidate all kinds of insulting names.
Turnabout is apparently against the Republican Hater’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People
Hey, there’s one:
The Republican Hater’s Party.
or just:
The Hater’s Party.
But back on topic: several recipients of bailout money WERE pressured into accepting it.
name ‘em and describe the pressure.
“Jay Tea”: “the party of “me””
That’s an excellent definition of “sociopath.”
Thank you, “Jay Tea”.
Now you understand what I mean when I call you a “sociopath”: someone who thinks it’s all about them.
Wow, did Newsy just say, in essence, “America: love it or leave it?” Man, haven’t heard that one since… well, I think that was a big Klan slogan.
And hey, we have a new definition: Sociopath means “someone who disagrees with Newsy.”
But for Newsy’s suggestion of that “libertarian paradise” (although it’s closer to an “anarchist paradise” — and those anarchists are usually horribly anti-corporation, too) of Somalia… apparently he doesn’t remember that sending Americans to Somalia for remarkably fungible reasons and no fucking clue on what to do there ended up getting quite a few loyal American soldiers killed for no real reason whatsoever — isn’t that right, Madame Secretary of State?
J.
No, Newsy, “someone who thinks it’s all about them” is an egomaniac. My statement meant that I don’t belong to either party, and have no interest in belonging to either.
And considering how many times you mention me before I ever comment on a thread, I’m starting to feel like it IS all about me with you. Oh, joy, I got a creepy stalker.
Lucky me.
J.
Grumpyman: Have you ever seen a con admit that something was wrong?
Yes, I have. Jay Tea has actually admitted being wrong, for example. I can’t remember the specifc cases anymore (yes, plural), but I remember commenting on it at the time and giving him credit for doing so.
Does it not strike you at all ironic, BTW, they in bemoaning the “cons” tendency to name call and insult you’re touching on that territory yourself?
Opinion on the left he may be a war criminal.
But on the right he is ACCUSED of being a traitor.
Opinion VS. Accusation
There in is the difference.
That’s one of those irregular verbs, isn’t it. I opine, you accuse. (I’m not a kettle, but my you’re black. That kind of thing.)
Jay Tea: And not a single one of them was told that there would be strings and conditions of this magnitude — this was all done ex post facto. GM, for example, was never told that would have to get rid of its CEO at the first bailout, or that that was even on the table.
Because anyone who invests in a company is only allowed to make their opinion and wants known at the very beginning. Once the money is handed over they have to never open their mouth again.
Right?
We can alswys return the favor,
GOP =
Grumpy Old Poops
Greatly Oversold Philosophy
Graying Obsessed Pricks
Government of Plunderers
Going Out Praying
et cetera
Sean D. Martin,
As I said to Willaim no insult was intended by calling them cons.
When the use of Lib, Dem, Lefty are common parlance I see it as short hand but if offense is taken my apology for the misunderstanding of my meaning.
As to your suggestion that there is no difference between someone putting forth an opinion and someone making an accusation. If you see it that way so be it.
But if I called someone an ass THAT is easily disproved if they are a human being.
If I say that I am of the OPINION that someone is an ass that is a matter of debate.
The first is making a statement as if it is a fact. Once it is disproved. To state it as fact again makes the person who states it either a lair or a dumbass.
The second is a statement of opinion, there is no proof offered or required.
Denotation and connotation are different in meaning, spelling and pronouncement.
Peace Ne With You.
“Jay Tea”: “America: love it or leave it?”
Personally, I do love America and have been infuriated at how the right wing has abused my country and corrupted my government.
“Jay Tea”: “that was a big Klan slogan”
I’ll concede that you assuredly know more about the Klan than I do, “Jay Tea”. Big fan are you?
“Jay Tea”: “fungible reasons”
Water can be “fungible” and money can be “fungible.”
Is “fungible reasons” like “right wing logic”?
As to Jay Tea, I have seen him admit a mistake. And in the same breath, go on to excuse it, attempt to diminish it or go on to attack someone or something else. Never just pronounce something wrong and leave it at that.
Has it happened? You say it has and I’m not one to call someone a liar with no prof but I have not seen it.
As an old drunk once told me “The sun shines on a dogs ass every now and then.”
Once again …
Peace Be With You.
The Unrepublic Party?
I’m with Brad deLong. If they’re going to call us the “Democrat Socialist Party”, when everyone is done laughing we should just start calling them the “National Socialist Party”. Fair’s fair.
“National Socialist Party”
ouch.
That’ll leave a mark.
The Neo-Confederate Party of Ill Government, or Neo-Con_Pill
The Right Whiners Party?
or maybe just:
The Whiners Party
Anytime somebody uses the idiotic insult ‘democrat party,’ minus the ‘ic’ on ‘democratic,’ it’s a red flag for me that they are not to be taken seriously. I suppose this will just make it all the more obvious.
Eyeless, that is brutal. That is savage. That is Godwin’s rule personified.
And in this case, not entirely unjustified.
“Hey, if you get to rename us, we get to rename you! Fair’s fair!”
Way, way over the top, but if it gets the message across…
J.
Grumpyman: As to your suggestion that there is no difference between someone putting forth an opinion and someone making an accusation. If you see it that way so be it.
I think you missed my point. Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
I wasn’t suggesting the words “opinion” and “accusation” are interchangeable but that you were seeing things from a partisan perspective. You seemed to see comments coming from the left as as opinions while those coming from the right as accusations. That when the left said “He’s a war criminal” they are expressing an opinion but when the right says “He’s a traitor” they’re making an accusation.
As to Jay Tea, I have seen him admit a mistake. And in the same breath, go on to excuse it, attempt to diminish it or go on to attack someone or something else. Never just pronounce something wrong and leave it at that.
Yes, absolutely I’ve seen him take that approach also. And many times I’ve been extremely harsh in my condemnation of JT when he’s done it. But I do recognize that there are times when he is pretty fair-minded (case in point
) and I hesitate to paint with too broad a brush the idea that those on the right are the ones who insult and never apologize when proven wrong.
Sean D. Martin,
In some instances you are correct about the characterizations of others.
But I mainly speak for myself. I know what I do. And what I see others doo is for them to answer for.
But in this case I’m speaking in an “On the whole” or in “generalities” kind of thing.
Your point is taken.
I should have said “Most of the time”. and I will call myself chastised on the point.
But that dose not change the … crux of my point.
The GOP should call it what it is — “Reality-based Logic-Based Party That An Overwhelming Majority of Americans Vote For.”
I wonder if Republicans realize a very simple fact. For people under thirty-five, when you say socialism, they think Sweden. Not the USSR. So, they say, “free health care, free education all the way up to the PhD level, and universal welfare. Where do I sign up?”
The problem is, it ain’t free. It’s Robert Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL principle — “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone pays — in this case, everybody pays. But, much like tax withholding, you don’t really see how much you pay. And in the system, everyone pays according to their ability, then consumes according to their need — meaning that there is no correlation between how much one pays and what services one receives. So some people get screwed over, but it’s too much work for most people to figure out who makes out and who gets screwed.
And in the end, Margaret Thatcher’s truism will be borne out: “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
J.
Sure Jay Tea. Because capitalism has been such a smashing success in providing wealth, prosperity, and stability to America over the past eight years.
Jesse writes “I wonder if Republicans realize a very simple fact. For people under thirty-five, when you say socialism, they think Sweden. Not the USSR.”
This is the smartest comment I’ve read in a while. And Jay Tea responds by quoting Thatcher, a person who most under-35’s either revile or don’t know.
J.G.Thayer: “The problem is, it ain’t free. It’s Robert Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL principle — ‘There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.’ Someone pays — in this case, everybody pays.”
And in the case of socialized health care, everyone pays less. At least on average.
Or do you think it’s a fluke that the Canadian government spends less on health care per capita and % GDP than the United States does, despite the fact that the United States also has private health care?
Jaim, I didn’t touch the Sweden quote because I didn’t want to go into a diatribe about the sorry state of public education when the Soviet Union — and the hundreds of millions of people it killed, and even more enslaved — is considered ancient history and often ignored.
And as usual, Strowbridge presents a tiny fraction of the truth. How much of Canada’s GDP goes towards defense? Does Canada have an entitlement system that sucks up anywhere near as much of their GDP as ours?
Here’s an ugly little secret: approximately 80% of Canada’s defense budget is listed under the US Defense Department, under “other.”
Oh, and Strowbridge, that’s called “metaphor.” It’s a shorthand way of pointing out that Canada’s defense spending is incredibly, artificially low, thanks to the US. And that means that because we are their only land neighbor, and we are the world’s preeminent superpower (I’d even say hyperpower), and we don’t like the idea of having to deal with a hostile neighbor to the north, Canada’s danger of being attacked is virtually nonexistent. So their defense needs are incredibly slight.
On the other hand, Canada probably spends a hell of a lot more money every year than the US does on fighting the terrible scourge of rabid moose attacks…
J.
It’s a shorthand way of pointing out that Canada’s defense spending is incredibly, artificially low, thanks to the US. And that means that because we are their only land neighbor, and we are the world’s preeminent superpower (I’d even say hyperpower), and we don’t like the idea of having to deal with a hostile neighbor to the north, Canada’s danger of being attacked is virtually nonexistent. So their defense needs are incredibly slight.
Mr. Tea, that makes no sense at all. How much of the U.S. defense budget is spent on defending against direct attacks on the mainland?
History always works like that, JayTea. Kids today don’t care about the Vietnam War just like young adults in the late-70’s didn’t care about Korea and young adjusts just before WW II didn’t care about WW I. Once it’s not in your conciousness, twenty-five years ago might as well be one hundred and fifty years ago.
Also, there’s a massive difference between a democratic social democracy like Sweden and most of the Nordic countries and a totalitarian dictatorship that happened to be state-controlled like the USSR.
Finally, yes. People in Sweden pay more in taxes. However, once you throw in state/property/local taxes into the basket with US federal taxes, the difference ain’t that great. And as a result, they do pay ten percent more in total taxes, but they get _much_ more in services. Services that work well. As was noted, national health care – cheaper per capita. National Higher Education – Most likely cheaper per capita.
So yes. I would bet if you went to somebody who’s making $50,000 and told them, “you will have to pay ten percent more in total taxes. However, you won’t be paying a premium every month to an HMO. When your kids turn 18, you won’t have to pay thousands in tuition. If you have another child, we’ll help you with a decent chunk of your child care. Good deal?”
“Jaim, I didn’t touch the Sweden quote because I didn’t want to go into a diatribe about the sorry state of public education when the Soviet Union — and the hundreds of millions of people it killed, and even more enslaved — is considered ancient history and often ignored.”
Jay, you’ve never met a point that you couldn’t miss. The reason why the comment is a good one isn’t because people have forgotten how bad bad bad the USSR is, it’s because they’re realizing how good good good people have it in social democracies. The GOP loves to try and scare people about America turning into France, but younger and more educated Americans don’t quiver in fear (about the only thing Republicans are capable of these days), rather, they see a country that provides reasonable things like affordable health-care, where people don’t go bankrupt due to a medical condition, and where people simply live longer.
But please, continue spouting your gibberish to the 20% of Americans too deluded to come outside of their bunkers/moms’ basements.
“On the other hand, Canada probably spends a hell of a lot more money every year than the US does on fighting the terrible scourge of rabid moose attacks…”
And yet, 9/11 happened in an American city under a Republican president. Canada wasn’t hit. So what is it that you’re trying to argue?
Exactly. People hear Bill O’Reilly talk about Sweden & France and their “socialized medicine” and “socialist countries” and then they visit there. As a result, they realize it’s not the USSR. It’s America, except getting sick isn’t an apocalyptical event.
Then they come back and tell their friends.
J.G.Thayer: “And as usual, Strowbridge presents a tiny fraction of the truth. How much of Canada’s GDP goes towards defense?”
So because the United States spends so much on Defense, it means they have to spend MORE ON HEALTH CARE BUT STILL GET WEAKER RESULTS!
Are you this fucking stupid?
This is where Hanlon’s Razor breaks down.
Kind of proves Clark’s Law.
No, Strowbridge, this time it was an example of reading something just before I went to bed, and misreading it.
You said “spends less on health care per capita and % GDP than the United States,” and my eyes saw “more.” And at the time, it made a bit of twisted sense. I also crossed the debate stream with another discussion I’ve been having about the percentage of GDP the US spends on defense vs. other nations’ percentages.
I apologize for that (which I don’t expect you to accept).
J.
The “Democrat Socialist” thing is rather stupid, but in fairness, could it be said that the Democratic Party is trending toward a European-style Social Democrat stance?
Jaim, I didn’t touch the Sweden quote because I didn’t want to go into a diatribe about the sorry state of public education when the Soviet Union — and the hundreds of millions of people it killed, and even more enslaved — is considered ancient history and often ignored.
It’s getting that way. Today, there are many voters that were born during or after the fall of the Soviet Union (myself included). And before you say that those people are “stupid” because they don’t believe socialism is pure evil, remember that people back then also believed that tobacco was good for you. So yeah…
“[Right winger] Jay, you’ve never met a point that you couldn’t miss.”
Republican Party:
Misinformed Party?
Mistaken Party?
Miseducated Party?
Misconceiving Party?
Misadministration Party?
Misemployed Party?
Misgovernment Party?
Misinformation Party?
Mismanaged Party?
Mismanagement Party?
Misorder Party?
Mistruth Party?
Misbehaving Party?
Rebranding the Republican Party:
The Limbaugh Party?
The Undemocratic Party?
The Anti-Intellectual Party?
The Anti-Science Party?
The Anti-Reality Party?
The Warmonger Party?
The War Profiteering Party?
The Sadist Party?
The Neo-Fascist Party?
The Proto-Fascist Party?
The Outrage Party?
The Perpetual Outrage Party?
The Feinting Couch Party?
The Lunatic Extremist Party?
The Jump the Shark Party?
The Goper Party? (GOP=Republican)
Goober Oily Poopyhead Party?
Greedy Old Panderers?
———–
“El Cid’s” contribution is perfect:
The Neo-Confederate Party.
Republicans: The Misgoverning Party.
Republicans:
The Cheney Party.
The Bush Party.
The Karl Rove Party.
The Jack Abramoff Party.
The Yoo Party.
J.G.Thayer: “No, Strowbridge, this time it was an example of reading something just before I went to bed, and misreading it.
You said ’spends less on health care per capita and % GDP than the United States,’ and my eyes saw ‘more.’ And at the time, it made a bit of twisted sense.”
How? How does that make sense? If I wrote that, I was essentially making your case for you. Quite frankly, I don’t believe you could be that stupid.
“I apologize for that (which I don’t expect you to accept).”
I’ll accept it when you actually address my point.
And unless you forgot it, socialized health care will save money. It saves money because it is universal, which means you don’t have corporate bureaucrats trying to figure out ways to deny paying for necessary medical treatment. This saves money.
(Overhead in the United States is 32% while in Canada its 17%.)
Me: “I’ll accept it when you actually address my point.”
Is that a no then?
Me: “I’ll accept it when you actually address my point.”
Me: “Is that a no then?”
Still a no.
J.G.Thayer is a coward, and this thread proves it.