Poor, poor Republicans... by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Yeah, but to quote Bones, "You've never wanted to shoot a clown?"

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
you have no love for that prick Perry

Well, yeah - but there's lettin his career die of natural causes, slippin a knife in from behind...

And then there's public execution, a'la Romney.

I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't already thinkin it.

Problem is you ain't got much to replace him with, and I remain a bit unsure about someone like Freidman in public office - but if it's a figurehead position though...

Heh heh heh.

-F

Oooh - forgot to mention Perry's also under fire for refusing to stay the execution of an innocent man. And last week, on the eve of the release of a report following an investigation of how and why that happened, Perry fired all the members of the panel issuing the report, and had them replaced with his hand-picked cronies.

As one of Perry's supporters has said, the Texas judicial system isn't concerned with whether someone on Death Row is guilty or innocent; they're only concerned with whether the rules and procedures were followed in putting them on the death gurney.

Perry, by the way, considers himself another "compassionate conservative", in the mold of his mentor, George W. Bush.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

HEY, Phoenix, no fair; the line about Ronald McDonald was originally Robin Williams', and I've quoted it here at least twice!

As for Texas, if Perry wants to secede, I'd be tempted to say "go ahead". Like to see how far they got, and how long they'd last. Recent years, seems like a buncha nutcases to me.

As for Palin, I think she's helping split the party quite nicely, thank you. This "Conservative", tea-bagging bunch wants to kill the Republican Party because they're not "conservative enough"??? I think they got so encouraged by Dumbya's administration they actually think they're a POWER in government, adn can't see beyond their noses. It's a shame, really, but I suppose there will always be a minority of hard-core on either side that off-shoots and screws up the party. We dems have certainly had 'em...

Bush? A figurehead? Of course he was--the man couldn't put two sensible thoughts together by himself. Cheney, Rummy, et al. were running the place...who hasn't figured that out yet? He could have taken vacation his entire presidency and things would have turned out precisely the same.

Something that trul shocked hubby and I we discovered some time back. Saw video of Bush when he was governor...and whatever he may have thought or done, he SOUNDED intelligent, articulate and very impressive...then as Prez he sounded like a complete buffoon. What happened? Does anyone know, because it amazed us and made us wonder.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:57 AM

OPPYH

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:09 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
HEY, Phoenix, no fair; the line about Ronald McDonald was originally Robin Williams', and I've quoted it here at least twice!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

Dang... Do you have a date on that quote? And I thought I was so bein' so erudite - I have an ancient videotape of Bobcat saying that joke.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:38 AM

Phoenix: I've got Bobcat saying it on his "I Don't Mean To Insult You..." album, which came out in 2003. Not sure if Robin Williams said it before that. Would be interested to find out, though. I think they're both hilarious in their standup, but I can pretty much do without the movies of either of them. ;)

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
then as Prez he sounded like a complete buffoon. What happened? Does anyone know, because it amazed us and made us wonder.

A couple things happened. One was the national media. Another was the lampooning of him by various high profile comedians. Another was a change in the political culture that turned mainstream the fringe belief that your political opposition was somehow stupid, evil, or insane. Another was the Bush-haters who never got over the 2000 election and thus believed every negative thing ever said about Bush.

They followed the same game plan with Palin. With Palin I have never seen someone attacked like she was in the few days between her being announced by McCain and her speech at the convention. Since then they make fun of her...and rarely her politics. It all hair, clothes, family life, hobbies, accent, etc.

Let me be clear. I am as strong an opponant as the President has. I will never make fun of his daughters. I will not ignore his policies to argue his skin color, wardrobe choices, and birthplace. I will make fun of date night and the weekly White House parties, but only because they seem more important then Iraqi troop levels (and the Bush-vacation argument is a valid argument, I disagree but its worthy of debate). In short my disagreement with President Obama is about what he's doing, not who he is.

The Left cannot say the same about Bush or Palin, two highly successful governors and national Republican figures. In their cases the political arguments were lost decades ago with Ronald Reagan...so attacking them personally is the only option.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 8:15 AM

"Hero", you really crack me up. SUUUUURRRE you won't question Obama's birthplace. Well, until you do, that is. Which you already did.

So much for your objectivity in these matters.

And really, you don't think the left can argue about what Bush actually DID, rather than who he IS? Really? Is your head still that far up your ass? I can deal with him being little more than a chimp in a suit, as long as they keep him away from the cutlery. What I *can't* tolerate is him starting illegal, immoral wars for absolutely no valid reason, dithering while an American city drowns, giggling while human beings are tortured on his orders, and more. That's not about "who he is" but quite clearly about "what he's doing".

You wanna have a talk about Palin's politics? Let's do. Let's start with her socialist policies of redistributing the wealth, handing out checks for every Alaskan for simply having the good fortune to be born there. Let's talk about the FACT that Alaska takes far more in federal money than it pays into the system, making it a huge socialist money-sink for "real" America. Let's talk about billing rape victims for investigating the crimes perpetrated on them. Let's talk about the politics of secession, and when exactly THAT became an American family value. Let's talk about the politics involved in leaving a town of a few thousand people MILLIONS of dollars in debt, all while running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. Let's talk about Bridges to Nowhere, and being for them before being against them.

You were saying?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 9:31 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
then as Prez he sounded like a complete buffoon. What happened? Does anyone know, because it amazed us and made us wonder.

A couple things happened. One was the national media. Another was the lampooning of him by various high profile comedians. Another was a change in the political culture that turned mainstream the fringe belief that your political opposition was somehow stupid, evil, or insane. Another was the Bush-haters who never got over the 2000 election and thus believed every negative thing ever said about Bush.

They followed the same game plan with Palin. With Palin I have never seen someone attacked like she was in the few days between her being announced by McCain and her speech at the convention. Since then they make fun of her...and rarely her politics. It all hair, clothes, family life, hobbies, accent, etc.

Yeah, it was aaaaaallll the media and them evil libruls. They never did anything wrong themselves. Bush was always eloquent and had a bullet-proof plan for taking the country into war, and Palin had laser-precise answers for even the toughest questions.

Quote:
In their cases the political arguments were lost decades ago with Ronald Reagan...so attacking them personally is the only option.

What fantasy world do you live in? Have you so much trouble accepting the GOP lost power (after, lets not forget, fucking the world) that you must invent alternate realities in which all GOP policies work flawlessly, and Palin has a brain? I pity you.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 9:32 AM

Niki, you keep saying that Bush is the same brand of conservative as the tea party people.

Now, the tea parties are an astroturf run by Republicans PRETENDING to be libertarian, but the people going to them don't realize that.

Bush is not a libertarian. He's not even particularly conservative, though I'll grant you he's certainly not a liberal. He's a neo con, big believer in corporations as a government power and spreading American ideology through military might. Most members of both the Republican and Democratic Party are, in fact, neo cons, though most of the people in the Democratic party are closet neo cons. The only difference is whether they directly support a welfare state, or indirectly support it and pretend that they don't.

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

So when the tea party attendees say they want to see the Republicans become MORE conservative, that's what they mean. They mean fiscal conservative or libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 12:02 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009/10/24/opinion/dpt-gray102509.t
xt

"Then in further contemplating where your political philosophy lies, please consider the following additional points. If you look at the Constitution, you will not find any authority for the federal government to do things like subsidizing farms, bailing out banks, running or even setting forth the parameters of a health-care system, managing automobile companies, or determining whether business executives are receiving too much income."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 12:04 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Instead of the expansion of government, it is the expansion of liberty that has brought people to our land from the earliest times in our history. And this desire for liberty has been ratified, because it is our adherence to the principle of limited government that has made our country both great and prosperous. And it will not let us down in the future either.

So most of the answers to today’s problems actually lie in turning away from the government’s taking charge of our lives. To the contrary, the real answer lies in liberty, property rights, individual accountability and the free enterprise system, tempered by appropriate government regulation and oversight."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Hero", you really crack me up. SUUUUURRRE you won't question Obama's birthplace. Well, until you do, that is. Which you already did.

I never attacked his birthplace. In fact I've gone after PN and other 'birthers' on this site.

On a broader level I think EVERY candidate should have to produce proof of Natural Born citizenship when registering to get on the Presidential ballot. I also commented on the case of the military fella that refused to deploy because he raised a valid legal issue (that his case could force disclosure of a birth certificate in discovery).

My belief is that Obama was born in Hawaii and the 'birthers' argument is as weak as the original BushHaters.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
What fantasy world do you live in? Have you so much trouble accepting the GOP lost power (after, lets not forget, fucking the world) that you must invent alternate realities in which all GOP policies work flawlessly, and Palin has a brain? I pity you.

The '80s was a magical time long, long ago...but they did happen.

The GOP may have lost power, but conservatives are stronger then ever. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideo
logical-Group.aspx#

Helps to have the Liberals out of the closet (politically speaking) so we get better contrast.

Obama would never have been elected on a Massive spending and tax increase/foriegn policy weakness and military indecision platform.

Instead he promised limited tax increase, a middle class tax cut, and other moderate proposals.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 12:43 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Damn, Phoenix, I looked for quite a while, but can't find it anywhere. I know it was before a big crowd--thought at the Met, which was back in '86, but not in the clips I've found. He and Bobcat have been friends for over 30 years, so they probably share some material, I just can't find who said it first.

Hero, you're so way off the mark I wonder if you READ my post. We saw a video of Bush when governor; he was eloquent, intelligent and articulate. The Bush we saw as Prez was most definitely NOT. Big difference, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the media; in both cases, it was the man himself speaking and a video, there's no way the media could change that.

I'd really like to know what happened, it was like two different people, or like he'd had some kind of brain damage...literally! If I could find the clip, I'd share it, because it was a real shock to both of us.

Quote:
The Left cannot say the same about Bush or Palin, two highly successful governors and national Republican figures. In their cases the political arguments were lost decades ago with Ronald Reagan...so attacking them personally is the only option.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL?!?! That doesn't even bear responding to, it's so pathetic. The politics of Bush and Palin have shown themselves for what they are--and after all that's come out about Bush's political actions, I'm amazed there's anyone left who can still champion him!

Palin is a joke, pure and simple. If you even bothered to look beyond what the media covers and her proponents claim, you'd find a lot of shady dealings, lack of willingness to do the hard work, and many more things.

How many governors have quit before their term was up for no apparent reason? How many VP candidates were called kooks by those working on the campaign: a diva who didn't want to do the work? It goes on and on; her politics aren't even worth going into, there's so much beyond what Mike mentioned; she's right up there with the tea baggers and other looneys. How can you even think of defending someone who pushed the "death panels" thing even after it was disproven?

Her "politics" aren't even HER politics...she's used and is using every trite stance in the book to talk to the "base"...of which you apparently are one, since you can't see beyond the surface. Now she's making money on the talk circuit, which I think is why she quit; much easier to go off at the mouth than actually WORK, and pays far better. She lies as much as Fox Noise, and about the same things.

As to Obama and the politics of personality, are you really unaware of how he's been attacked personally on Faux News and on placards and in statements by the tea baggers and everyone else on the extreme right? If so, you must not even watch Fixed News, because it's been going on for ages, before he was even elected. You must not watch ANY news, actually, nor political shows, because clips of it have been shown everywhere.

Byte, As to Bush and the "real" Conservatives, maybe I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that Bush gave the Republican party, and the hard-core right wing of it, so much power by spouting its LINE, despite not actually following it, that he encouraged radical types to become more and more aggressive. His playing to the religious right did the same, despite not really doing them any good.

It's ATTITUDE I'm talking about, and many of the things he did sat just fine with the Conservatives, despite his being a Neocon in reality. That's what I was trying to say. He made them feel in power for so long, they can't handle being THIS out of power now. Granted, his non-conservative actions went against the grain and the Republican Party is now paying the price for that, both politically in how they've been rejected by their conserative wing, and party-wise in how many previously-Republican Americans are deserting them.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:09 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As for the Gallup poll, it's long been known that America is a right-leaning country. However, polls only tell so much, so I'll offer this from someone who asked policy questions:

Quote:
Based on my weighting scheme, the country is evenly split between operational liberals and conservatives. Adults are conservative on foreign policy and national security (52 to 48) and values (62 to 38), but liberal on economic/social policy (57 to 43) and fiscal policy (60 to 40). Consistent with the idea that liberal is a stigmatized word, just 56 percent of operational liberals self-identified as liberal, while 30 percent self-identified as conservative. In contrast, 79 percent of operational conservatives said they were conservative.

I divided the electorate into five groups. The biggest group consists of self-identified conservatives who are also operationally conservative – 42 percent of the electorate. These folks are solidly conservative in all four policy domains, and solidly Republican. Self-identified liberals who are also operationally liberal constitute a smaller group – 27 percent of the electorate. They are the mirror image of their conservative counterparts.

Another 13 percent of voters say they are conservative but are operationally liberal. Forty-three percent say they are Democrats, while just 26 percent indicate they are Republican. Solid majorities voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. They are consistently liberal in the four policy domains, except that they are split down the middle on values. It's unclear whether values trumps the other policy domains or whether these are the voters for whom liberal is a four-letter word.

Voters who say they are liberal but are operationally conservative amount to just 5 percent of the electorate. Most of these voters are independents. They gave Bush 49 percent of their vote in 2000, but 59 percent in 2004. Tellingly, they are conservative on foreign policy and national security, as well as on values. They split on economic and social policy and on fiscal policy.

Finally, 13 percent of voters do not consistently describe themselves as a liberal or a conservative. This is actually a diverse group. They lean slightly Democratic, but they gave Kerry a solid 59 percent of their vote. Over half are operational liberals. They split on foreign policy and national security, lean right on values, and lean left on economic and social policy and fiscal policy.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2006/07/how_many_lib
erals_and_conserva.php

Further on that:

Quote:
Another problem arises when one ventures to ask, “Who has defined the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’?” The answer: The respondents themselves who were given the choice of answering whether they were “mostly conservative” or “mostly liberal” or somewhere in between. It’s not really a shock, then, that 32 percent say they are “mostly conservative” on social and political issues and a mere 17 percent say they are “mostly liberal” on social and political issues.

The “conservative” label, while it has suffered a few setbacks in the last few years and election cycles, has not taken one iota of the abuse that the label “liberal” has suffered. Certainly, when faced with a choice of calling themselves “liberal” or somewhere in between “liberal” and “conservative” most people, who I suspect are true liberals, will shy away from the tainted label. Apparently only those who have no fear of the “L-word” will embrace it.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/mediaculture/1292/religion_poll
_proves_that_liberals_are_not_conservatives

There's a lot more to it than just "are you Conservative or Liberal", the two terms are definitely viscerally-weighted. I'll wait to see how people act, and vote, before believing one way or the other, thank you.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009/10/24/opinion/dpt-gray102509.t
xt

"Then in further contemplating where your political philosophy lies, please consider the following additional points. If you look at the Constitution, you will not find any authority for the federal government to do things like subsidizing farms, bailing out banks, running or even setting forth the parameters of a health-care system, managing automobile companies, or determining whether business executives are receiving too much income."

Aren't you the guy who said you didn't think the country had any use for a President? So do you want to follow the Constitution, or not? Or do you want to follow it only when you agree with it?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Hero", you really crack me up. SUUUUURRRE you won't question Obama's birthplace. Well, until you do, that is. Which you already did.

I never attacked his birthplace. In fact I've gone after PN and other 'birthers' on this site.

On a broader level I think EVERY candidate should have to produce proof of Natural Born citizenship when registering to get on the Presidential ballot. I also commented on the case of the military fella that refused to deploy because he raised a valid legal issue (that his case could force disclosure of a birth certificate in discovery).

My belief is that Obama was born in Hawaii and the 'birthers' argument is as weak as the original BushHaters.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

So let me ask you this: Is it common practice to ask someone to prove definitively beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were born in the USA when you try them? This guy's complaint was that he didn't have to obey an order from the Commader In Chief because he didn't believe he was the CinC. The election was certified, was it not? If so, he's Commander In Chief. Ask Dubya about it sometime. He knows how that goes. Hell, you don't even have to WIN the election, or even the most electoral votes - you just have to get the election certified!

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Instead of the expansion of government, it is the expansion of liberty that has brought people to our land from the earliest times in our history. And this desire for liberty has been ratified, because it is our adherence to the principle of limited government that has made our country both great and prosperous. And it will not let us down in the future either.

So most of the answers to today’s problems actually lie in turning away from the government’s taking charge of our lives. To the contrary, the real answer lies in liberty, property rights, individual accountability and the free enterprise system, tempered by appropriate government regulation and oversight."

Wulfie, do you EVER actually have your own point to make, in your own words? Or are you content to live the rest of your life letting other people and music videos and YouTube do your talking for you? Are there things you think and believe that you DIDN'T read or see on the internet?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
What fantasy world do you live in? Have you so much trouble accepting the GOP lost power (after, lets not forget, fucking the world) that you must invent alternate realities in which all GOP policies work flawlessly, and Palin has a brain? I pity you.

The '80s was a magical time long, long ago...but they did happen.

The GOP may have lost power, but conservatives are stronger then ever. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideo
logical-Group.aspx#

Helps to have the Liberals out of the closet (politically speaking) so we get better contrast.

Obama would never have been elected on a Massive spending and tax increase/foriegn policy weakness and military indecision platform.

Instead he promised limited tax increase, a middle class tax cut, and other moderate proposals.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

What was Bush's platform again? How about his daddy's? Oh yeah - "No new taxes" What he left out was "Just lots and lots of increases on the OLD taxes". I don't think he'd have been elected had he told the truth... Neither Bush would have been. Think Dubya would have been elected by running on the "I plan to let terrorists hit us while I'm not paying attention and then get us into at least two ruinous wars which will suck our economy down and get thousands of our people killed" platform?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 2:01 PM

Quote:

The “conservative” label, while it has suffered a few setbacks in the last few years and election cycles, has not taken one iota of the abuse that the label “liberal” has suffered. Certainly, when faced with a choice of calling themselves “liberal” or somewhere in between “liberal” and “conservative” most people, who I suspect are true liberals, will shy away from the tainted label. Apparently only those who have no fear of the “L-word” will embrace it.

I've never been able to understand that. To me, the label "conservative" brings up nothing but negative connotations, while "liberal" sounds fresh and reassuring, embracing progress and moving ahead.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This guy's complaint was that he didn't have to obey an order from the Commader In Chief because he didn't believe he was the CinC. The election was certified, was it not?

Your assuming victory was the immediate goal.

In this case the man succeeded in his effort to place the issue in Court. Once you get in Court then the Rules of Procedure entitle him to do lots of cool stuff including subpoena documents and depose witnesses. Had this man been quartmartialed, as was his right should be face military discipline, then his defense would also entitle him to subpoena documents and depose witnesses.

I note for the record that this case quietly disappeared when the orders were withdrawn without explanation.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 5:24 PM

Quote:
I note for the record that this case quietly disappeared when the orders were withdrawn without explanation.

It's comments like that make people think you DO think the Birth Certificate folks might be on to something.

Most of the rest of us think the case just disappeared because it was kind of a joke.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 5:27 PM

Quote:
Byte, As to Bush and the "real" Conservatives, maybe I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that Bush gave the Republican party, and the hard-core right wing of it, so much power by spouting its LINE, despite not actually following it, that he encouraged radical types to become more and more aggressive. His playing to the religious right did the same, despite not really doing them any good.

It's ATTITUDE I'm talking about, and many of the things he did sat just fine with the Conservatives, despite his being a Neocon in reality. That's what I was trying to say. He made them feel in power for so long, they can't handle being THIS out of power now. Granted, his non-conservative actions went against the grain and the Republican Party is now paying the price for that, both politically in how they've been rejected by their conserative wing, and party-wise in how many previously-Republican Americans are deserting them.

Aw, jeez, you're right, you did already explain this. Sorry about that. I can be forgetful sometimes.

In the same THREAD even... Yeah, that's really bad. Sorry again. I'm not always able to remember if I've already said something or had a particular conversation before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:16 AM

Quote:
Had this man been quartmartialed,

It's things like this that make me REALLY question your claim that you are an attorney. You really, honestly don't know that it's called a "court martial"? He's not up on charges of being 32 ounces of liquid, ya know...

And if you do a little digging, you'll see that nothing really "disappeared" - the case went out of the public spotlight because the Army decided to take a different tack - they told the guy, "Okay, you say you volunteered, you say you can UN-volunteer, and by the way, you're not allowed on any United States military installation while this is a pending matter. Good luck getting to your off-duty job as a contractor on the military base you're no longer allowed on."

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:19 AM

Byte, the reason Bush gets tarred with the "conservative" brush, and they get tarred with him, is that he courted them so enthusiastically, and they embraced him the same way. The fact that he turned out to be an utter shitbag doesn't necessarily mean that they can now claim he was never one of theirs and they never really liked him anyway. As the song says, "can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only joking..."

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:02 AM

Well, yes, as there's a number of people that took the bait, stuff that seems morally repugnant and logically incomprehensible to me. But I think the danger of painting conservatives with the same brush as Bush is the danger of painting regular people who pick and choose their political stances, yet identify as conservative.

Doing so pushes all conservatives away, even reasonable ones, and only makes it harder to have a meaningful discourse/trouble-shoot because of demonizing and dehumanizing them, much as they do to liberals.

The biggest issues today aren't determined by party lines; at some point, we need to see past all the galanty and everyone, conservative and liberal, needs to take a stand against excesses, corruption, and abuse inherent in the power structure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's things like this that make me REALLY question your claim that you are an attorney. You really, honestly don't know that it's called a "court martial"? He's not up on charges of being 32 ounces of liquid, ya know...

Ohio does not have a spelling section on the bar. Can't speak for other states...still, I should have caught that one, thanks.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And if you do a little digging, you'll see that nothing really "disappeared" - the case went out of the public spotlight because the Army decided to take a different tack - they told the guy, "Okay, you say you volunteered, you say you can UN-volunteer, and by the way, you're not allowed on any United States military installation while this is a pending matter. Good luck getting to your off-duty job as a contractor on the military base you're no longer allowed on."

The case is gone. Once the orders were withdrawn it became moot. It was a novel means of legal challenge that would, had it been allowed to proceed, led to the production of the documents. I think the "birthers" argument is without merit, but I also found the the military's response (dropping the issue) to be interesting.

Interesting, but not a smoking gun. In fact the cost of overcoming the challenge may have outweighed the benefit of overcoming it. Its perfectly reasonable to drop the issue under those circumstances.

It does add fuel to the "birthers" fire. I'd have found a way to settle this once and for all.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:31 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

It's comments like that make people think you DO think the Birth Certificate folks might be on to something.

Most of the rest of us think the case just disappeared because it was kind of a joke.

Well, the Birthers were created to stop John McCain from being president, not Barack Obama. Re: Obama, maybe they are, but so what? I mean, does it make any difference? Obama's been an American for more than 35 years, and his mother is an american, he's spent 14 years in the country, I suspect that even with a Kenyan birth certificate the Supreme Court would still uphold Obama's Constitutional right to be President. And if they didn't, Biden would become president, I don't see that as a huge political shift. Actually, to be technical, I think that the matter only determines whether or not he can *become* president. Once he's sworn the oath of office he *is* president, even if he turns out to be a jellyfish in a human suit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:44 AM

Quote:
...even if he turns out to be a jellyfish in a human suit.

That conjurs up two images: Joe Lieberman and Bobby Kennedy Jr. Both have that quivering, milquetoast way of speaking that just makes me think of a jellyfish in a human suit. :)

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
but so what? I mean, does it make any difference? Obama's been an American for more than 35 years, and his mother is an american, he's spent 14 years in the country, I suspect that even with a Kenyan birth certificate the Supreme Court would still uphold Obama's Constitutional right to be President.

Actually, if Obama, or anyone else was not Natural Born, they would be Constitutionally inelidgable. Your argument flies in the face of the express wording of the Constitution and the intent of the founders. Its why we don't learn about President Hamilton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

I for one would support a Constitutional Amendment to reflect something along what you described. I always thought 20 year citizenship to be sufficient (Awwnald for President, 2012..."We'll be baack.")

Biden as President, maybe, likely even, but several other possibilities exist.

One could argue that since they are a joint ticket, the entire result is tainted. A vote for Obama/Biden is invalid. This is unlikely because the Electoral College makes the decision and they vote a seperately for each candidate.

Two, Electoral votes for Biden, valid. Electoral votes for Obama invalid. Either McCain wins (with the majority of the valid votes cast) or nobody wins because nobody got a majority...that puts the issue into Congressional hands, President Pelosi. As for VP, depending on how the VP Electoral votes are counted or invalidated then it could be either McCain/Palin or McCain/Biden. If Pelosi wins, it could be Pelosi/Biden or Pelosi with the VP vacant (assuming they picked Pelosi, they could pick anybody...Hillary might be more likely).

One could argue that Biden or Pelosi would be acting President until the issue sorted itself out.

I see no scenario that puts PirateNews in the White House.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:20 PM