For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: the dissembling Democrats:
- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination.
- One of Minnesota’s most prominent super-delegates, Walter Mondale, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he’s worried that his party is headed for a ‘super-sized’ political disaster if a nominee isn't chosen before the Democratic National Convention.
- Former Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, said Tuesday it would be easier for a black man to be elected to the White House than a woman.
The news out there from the left is all pretty awful. Making matters worse, Democrat Congressional leaders seem content to ride out another year without any significant legislative accomplishments despite all their promises in 2006.
With that in mind, irrespective of how the media have been framing a huge left-wing victory in November, is the Democrat Party in a lot of trouble? Will Republicans be able to capitalize on these left-wing woes, or miss a great opportunity to move the country back to the right?
Comments Policy
One of Minnesota’s most
March 26, 2008 - 09:34 ET by NewsbusterbrownOne of Minnesota’s most prominent super-delegates, Walter Mondale, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he’s worried that his party is headed for a ‘super-sized’ political disaster if a nominee isn't chosen before the Democratic National Convention.
If that happens, Walter, I would have no "beef" with that. :-D
If people use their brains
March 26, 2008 - 09:37 ET by wiwfIf people use their brains and THINK about the issues instead of getting spoonfed agenda driven news they'd know to never vote for a Democrat again.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
And now, today's The Shrub
March 26, 2008 - 09:37 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's The Shrub Report®:
The Picture of the Year.
Keeping with the theme of the above photo and the Open Thread topic, don't forget to send Nancy Pelosi a environmentally-friendly birthday card today. San Fran Nan turns a very youthful 68 today. The best way to cleanse your mental palate of horrid visions of Blinky is by wishing lovely Keira a happy 23rd.
The latest Leon's Undisputable Proof that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war and Al-Qaeda Has An Almost Undetectable Presence There Update.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, what sectarian strife there is is being handled by the Iraqis while the US and UK stand aside. Baby steps to correct the UK's mistake, and what should be a warning to all the "defeat at all costs" Lefty military mental midgets who think pulling out is a simple and wise move.
RD Helm sends in this worthy Father of the Year candidate…
Yes, you ARE getting old: Aerosmith's Steven Tyler turns 60 today.
The UN demands 25% more money from its victims, er, donors. The Bush Administration, of course, is to blame. At least the UN takes a firm stance on terrorism.
Muslims flee Egypt for the safety of… Israel?
And, finally…
Democrats for McCain
March 26, 2008 - 09:38 ET by DelsaDemocrats for McCain does not surprise me. After all, it was Democrats and Independents voting in the early primarys who chose him as our candidate.
There were other factors, but cross over voting is the reason we have the X POW as our candidate.
I figure voting for McCain in November by dems or independents is a given. They will elect him president.
Delsa, I wouldn't have a
March 26, 2008 - 09:52 ET by motherbeltDelsa, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Not that I think McCain would be a great President. But I think that Obama, (who is much more likely than HRC) is SO far left, that he is nearly off the edge. That territory where, as used to be on maps when they thought the earth was flat, "Beyond here there be dragons."
Definitely don't want to go there.
MB, none of us know where BHO stands, except behind his pastor
March 26, 2008 - 10:11 ET by PawpawNMB, what does anyone know of Obama, what his positions are, what his plan for America is, etc., as he is never questioned on anything. I'm not voting for him or HRC, but at least I want someone to question him so those who seem to just eat him up will get educated on what his platform is, what he thinks on the issues-not just the war and healthcare, since one's a taken and the other is a no go. What's his stand on taxes, what's is stand on business-small and large, what's his stand on Homeland Security, what's his stand on terrorism, what's his stand on education, etc., etc? We are like Sgt Schultz, weze know nuthin'! Then maybe the worshipers will see the light and move past him.
Not exactly on the
March 26, 2008 - 09:41 ET by motherbeltNot exactly on the suggested topic, but I have to go out in a bit, so I'm going to toss this into the ring: Thomas Sowell has a great column today at Townhall called The Audacity of Rhetoric in which he explains why Obama's recent speech on the race issue is a reason for him NOT to be President.
Speaking of how Obama admits to seeking out, in his youth, exactly the kind of people that Wright exemplifies (leftists, radicals, etc), yet now professes to be THE ONE who can heal the divide and bridge the gap between the races, Sowell says:
The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability. (emphasis added)
Check it out. As usual, Sowell is a great read.
Agreed
March 26, 2008 - 10:25 ET by KC MulvilleSowell is a must-read.
You have to ask: Other than persuasive (but cheap) campaign speeches, what could possibly suggest that Obama won't pursue an aggressive liberal agenda? Every single piece of evidence points to an un-compromising liberal, almost radical. It's a clear case of liberals and the media demanding that we not believe our lying eyes.
Walter Mondale.
March 26, 2008 - 09:46 ET by Missouri ConservativeWalter Mondale speaks from experience here, he's certainly one who knows first-hand about "super-sized political disasters".
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Not that the MSM wants to notice or anything...
March 26, 2008 - 09:52 ET by sarcasmoBut a variety of other interesting choices may be on the menu. I like Dr. Ruwart a lot, she's an interesting person.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Two comments
March 26, 2008 - 09:56 ET by KC MulvilleAs for the media, reality won’t matter. No matter how bad the Democrats get, the media won’t report it. If they do, it’ll be in the form of “the Republicans are to blame.” Last night, I happened to catch Olbermann say that the current Democratic situation is “almost Karl Rove-ean.” The man’s been out of the White House for months, but the Olbermanns of the world can’t let him go yet … even if Olbermann had to add the full name, in case his listeners didn’t grasp who he was talking about.
It all comes down to how long this fight continues. I believe in the 40-40-20 rule: No matter what else happens, 40% will vote Democrat, 40% will vote Republican, and the real fun is only about the 20%. But those 20% are there because they can’t make up their minds – after all, we know everything we could possibly know about the candidates’ positions already. Those last-minute voters are hoping that some criteria will jump up at the last minute to swing their vote. So, the stupidity of this whole process is that although we’ll have endured two years of full-time campaigning, it’ll still likely come down to some embarrassing revelation that magically pops out during October anyway. Two years ago it was Mark Foley. I don't know what it will be, but after the Foley success, you can count on something ...
Of course! Remember, being a Republican doesn’t necessarily mean you’re conservative. And as we’ve seen in the last few years, this crop of Republicans are happy to cave in to the mushy middle. They also panic at the slightest poll dip. Experience is that these Republicans are as craven as their Democrat counterparts. They’ll push a conservative agenda only so much as they have to; they won’t risk offending the 20% with any ‘ideological” agenda.
“almost Karl
March 26, 2008 - 12:00 ET by Hero Squad“almost Karl Rove-ean.”
What's funny about this is that Olbermann admits (though likely unintentionally) that Democrats use the same tactics as Republicans when it comes to elections.
In other words, Karl Rove is merely exceptional at performing ordinary political duties. Which seems to disavow the "Karl Rove is Evil" mantra of the left.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
This is exactly why polls are important
March 26, 2008 - 09:59 ET by shawn228Just a few months ago, the polls showed Obama beating any of the GOP candidates, a month after that it showed Obama easily beating McCain. Now it is showing the disdain Democrats are showing to their own party right now.
Polls are important.
No, as much as I would like
March 26, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Ruths husband BenNo, as much as I would like to think otherwise, the Republican's don't show any ability or inclination to capitalize on the opportunities that they have been given.
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
"Oh, rrrreaaaalllllyyyyy!!!!!!! -RhB
RHB, I think you are
March 26, 2008 - 10:06 ET by LeonRHB,
I think you are correct. This Wright story has already passed and nobody cares about it anymore.
Instead of focusing on Obama's relationship with Wright, which should have been a nail in the coffin for his presidency, those attacking him focused on themselves. On how unfair 'white guilt' is. Too much whining about how hard it is to be white in America (haha), too little focus on Obama
However, I wouldn't give up on the Republican attack machine yet. I think they're holding back their big guns until a Democrat is chosen.
Leon, I think you are right
March 26, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Ruths husband BenLeon, I think you are right about the failure to use the Wright story effectively to tell the bigger story (talk about Obama's ethical qualifications to be President). He has been very effective at defining the debate over himself, something that I have never seen before in politics. His opponents can't talk about his past drug use, his wife's wacky Anti-American statements, his middle name, his association with Wright, the New Black Panthers, that slum-lord (can't remember his name right) and any of a list of unsavory characters. They can't talk about the most obvious things like his race and religion (but he can). This is the most lopsided election cycle I have ever seen.
But regarding the Republican attack machine: They probably can't decide who they want to attack the most, Clinton, Obama, or McCain. They certainly don't seem too fired up right now.
RHB, Nice post, but I
March 26, 2008 - 11:55 ET by LeonRHB,
Nice post, but I disagree slightly with your phrasing.
People CAN talk about whatever they want concerning Obama, it's just that nobody cares. His supporters especially don't care.
Furthermore, some of the attacks were so petty in the beginning (i.e. trying to associate him with muslims b/c of his middle name or his elementary school) that I think it put every other attack that has come since in a dubious context. Sort of like the boy who cried wolf. If you attack a candidate with weak, easily refutable claims early in the process, then every other claim that comes after it will have trouble sticking. I think we are seeing this now with Obama. Many of the attacks, even when they have teeth (i.e. Wright) just aren't sticking.
As for the Republican attack machine, I think you're right. They aren't fired up, but it might be smart of them to let the Dems cannabalize each other before getting invovled. Hill and Obama so far are doing they're dirty work for them.
It will be interesting to see it rev up once a candidate is selected.
The problem, of course, is that their own candidate is weak and disliked by many Republicans. I'm interested to see how it ends up. Will everyone finally accept McCain and fall in line or will a Republican victory depend entirely upon breaking down the Democrat candidate?
I don't think it's accurate
March 26, 2008 - 12:05 ET by Hero SquadI don't think it's accurate to say that nobody cares. Sure, some don't care, while others care to excess.
But I think it's safe to say that most people have already decided in their own minds just how much this impacts their personal opinion of Obama, and how it will impact their voting decision. At this point, hammering it more will not change to many minds... except to get the reverse impact and start getting some people to feel sympathetic toward Obama for what they start to see as his paying the price for the sins of another.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
HS, I agree with you.
March 26, 2008 - 13:06 ET by LeonHS,
I agree with you. Your analysis is spot on.
You're right that it's not as simple as people not caring.
Even more interesting is your point about sympathy. There's always the risk that attacking someone too much will have the opposite effect. You need to tread lightly, especially with a candidate like Obama.
What I meant was that the
March 26, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Ruths husband BenWhat I meant was that the press is allowing Obama to decide is taboo and what is not. The end result is that even though he doesn't get to choose the field of play, he does get to decide where the out of bounds lines are drawn and this is not healthy for a public discourse on who will lead our country. I do agree with you that many of the "issues" are petty (such as his middle name) but if we don't discuss them, they tend to fester and not disappear. You can't dismiss things that are concerns of people, even if you think their concerns are petty. Well you can't unless you are ready to concede their votes because in this country even they have the right to vote.
My problem with Obama is two-fold. First, I think his idea of foreign policy is suicidal. He may get Dr. Kevorkian to think embracing despots and just yanking our troops out of Iraq is logical, but he will never sell me. Secondly, and admittedly more a "gut" thing then logical, the unreasoning worship of any man (or woman) like we are seeing with the Obamaphenomen (remember I said it first, I never got credit for ObaMessiah!) repulses me. Any body who evokes that kind of adulation is up to no good, in my opinion.
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
"Oh, rrrreaaaalllllyyyyy!!!!!!! -RhB
RHB, 1) I think you are
March 26, 2008 - 13:38 ET by LeonRHB,
1) I think you are correct about his influence on the discourse surrounding him. While I agree you can't dismiss people's fears and concerns, you always have to keep them in a proper context. Trying to expose a weakness in a person based on a name they were GIVEN is not the most effective form of political attack. But you are right in that concerns can not simply be dismissed
2) As for foreign policy, while I understand your concern, I genuinely believe that there is no military option for our current situation. As I've asked before, how are we going to fight terror militarily? Kill every terrorist? It doesn't make any sense. You kill one, you get a whole family of terrorists. I think Iran is a great example of the power of technology and the power of open, instantaneous communication between countries. Ahmadinejad will be removed from office by the Iranian people. This will happen. The young Iranians know his deal and they have access to the facts about their insane leader. This type of access to information is key to the war on terror. Our current approach won't work. We can't kill all the terrorists. So I'm all for something new. Something more effective. The internet is the key. I.E. when Israel was bombing the hell out of Lebanon, the young people in both countries were IMing each other, talking about what their governments were doing. Open communication between the peoples of the world is the only chance we have of defeating terrorism. Call it idealistic, but it's a reality. War, killing terrrorists, etc. is useless and only serves to further perpetuate terrorism. I think Obama could give us a great chance to commit ourselves to the global environment and eliminate the stigma our country as of doing whatever we want while respecting no one but ourselves.
3) The worship of any man repulses you? I think it's safe to say the first 6 years of the new milennium was rife with Bush adoration. He was worshipped unabashedly by his followers. Bush evoked the same exact kind of feelings from the right and guess what, he WAS up to no good!
Regarding 2), "We can't
March 26, 2008 - 14:16 ET by Ruths husband BenRegarding 2), "We can't kill all the terrorists." Well, we can try. Even by your admission, we are creating a "target rich environment" over there. That's better than a target rich one over here. BTW, if you are paying attention to what is going on in Iraq, our soldiers and diplomats (and the Iraqi people) have been quite effective at killing a lot of them. The trick is to kill the bad guys AND to stop new bad guys from springing up. Creating oppurtunity and hope is one way. Creating a justice system is another. Giving people the right to shape their own future is a third (i.e., voting). These things are happening in Iraq today. BTW, I agree that we shouldn't be there, but it is the reality right now. Wishful thinking about what would a's, should a's, and could a's is living in the past.
3) The Bush years have been marked by Bush hatred, not adulation. Sure, there are those who love him just based on his eloquence (like Obama) (humor), but I don't think it is as much an unreasoning love compared to the left's unreasoning hatred. Hell, they blame everything from bad breath to diaper rash on that man. Besides, we are talking about the next four years, not the last eight.
I do get the idea that you are not particularly happy with the idea of Obama as Prez. My personal opinion is that he will be President for one term only, and then the Democratic Party will be done in this country because he will botch it up so bad that a great conservative awaking will occur. I don't think the man has any depth; he is just what the liberals deserve.
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they
made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.” -Obama (talking about Imus)
"Oh, rrrreaaaalllllyyyyy!!!!!!! -RhB
RHB, 1) I'll accept
March 26, 2008 - 14:38 ET by LeonRHB,
1) I'll accept what you say about Iraq. Obviously we're still a far way away, but if we do what you've said, then we could certainly be successful. If we can build the infracstructure to a solid enough level to give people jobs, security, and a high quality of life, they will certainly be less prone to becoming terrororists. But even if we accomplish this in Iraq, get them stable and eliminate the terrorists, then what? The small number of terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are a miniscule fraction of the terrrorists in the world. So what do we do about them? Clean-up Iraq, clean-up Afghanistan, then head to Pakistan, then to Northern Africa, then to southeast asia? When does it stop? How is that plan even remotely feasible? This is my point. You really can't hope to defeat terrorism via military means. It's too pervasive globally. Bush was right when he said this was a battle for the hearts and minds. Unfortunately, you can't win hearts and minds with the barrel of a gun.
2) The Bush years have been marked by hatred from his enemies, but nothing short of undying worship from his supporters. He didn't start receiving heat from his supporters until the past two years. Prior to that, he was untouchable. Everything he said went unchallenged, so much so, that if you questioned what he said his supporters immediately called you Un-American. It's the same exact thing for Obama now. His haters hate him severely and his supporters worship him without questioning. Identical to the Bush experience.
3) I have my reservations about Obama and the timing. Frankly, I think we should have a Republican president to finish what they started. However, I like Obama for one simple reason. Fresh blood. I'm tired of the Clintons, I'm tired of the Bush's (which includes McCain), I'm tired of the old guard. We've had 20 years of these goobers and our country is in terrible shape. These older generations of politicians are out of touch with the ways of the world. We need somebody younger, that understands the power of technology, that understands how SMALL the world has become over the past 15 years. Like it or not our country depends on many many other countries for our well-being. It's time we stopped pretending we don't need anybody else. I think Obama being elected would send a great message to the rest of the world. America is ready for a change and we're ready to work together. That's a simple message, but one that's been missing for the past 8 years. So, my main support of Obama stems from my desire to get rid of the same old politicians. We need some new blood and some new ideas.
1) We shouldn't have gone
March 26, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Ruths husband Ben1) We shouldn't have gone into Iraq and we shouldn't insert ourselves into no win situations. Agreed.
2) Maybe true. Bush and the Republican party was quite arrogant in their majority. The reason that we have the system we have is that the constant push back from people with opposing views is healthy. When you have a situation where the White House and the Congress are from the same political party, like we did for Bush's first six years, we were in an unhealthy situation. Unfortunately for us now, the Democratic Party has been shanghied by idiots. The opposite of Republican is not Communist, but that is who they are (in my opinion). What ever happened to the Democrats of yesteryear? There is a serious lack of talent on both sides of the debate.
3) I agree we need fresh ideas. Unfortunately, I believe the fresh blood you are going to see after Obama gets elected will be wet and sticky American blood. I don't see anything good coming from his Presidency. What he lacks in experience he makes up for in his alignment with questionable characters, quazi-terrorist organizations and Socialists. I pray I am wrong because I really think he is going to the big dance come November.
Leon
March 26, 2008 - 15:21 ET by MrShy2) The Bush years have been marked by hatred from his enemies, but nothing short of undying worship from his supporters. He didn't start receiving heat from his supporters until the past two years. Prior to that, he was untouchable. Everything he said went unchallenged, so much so, that if you questioned what he said his supporters immediately called you Un-American. It's the same exact thing for Obama now. His haters hate him severely and his supporters worship him without questioning. Identical to the Bush experience.
When you stand by your convictions -- when you're not a wamby-pamby, pander to as many groups as you can -type -- with steadfast beliefs in what you're doing, and you're at peace in knowing you acted nobly on behalf of the best interests of the country who's job it is to protect, well then, that's what happens... people love you or hate you.
Isn't there some saying, that if you have enemies then at least it means you stood for something? That's why I admire Bush so much, seriously. That's why I have little admiration for both Democratic candidates.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Wright story still there, just MSM not reporting it-but HRC now
March 26, 2008 - 10:29 ET by PawpawNThe Rev Wright story is still there. No MSM are writing or talking about it, but some talk shows are and now HRC has lit into it! It will stay around longer than you think. Now she can hit his contributions also. All this is being played out so DIMS will select the last man standing-AL GORE!
Paw -- this story is going
March 26, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Jack BauerPaw -- this story is going right on till November. There's so much more to come out.
For instance, although there seems an EMBARGO on journos pursuing Obama's typical white grandma....
At some point (like Drudge did with Monica) that's going to break.
Then there's this amazing sermon from June 10, 2007 where Wright says some unbelieveable HATE PREACH...
Jesus was a Palestinian baby. Israel has developed on "ethnic" bomb to kill blacks and arabs.
The whole thing is an insane rant by a dedicated anti-Semite... check it out at
http://confederateya...
Jack, you're dead on
March 26, 2008 - 11:08 ET by PawpawNOh, I'm in total agreement. The story will be used by HRC to its fullest. The DVDs are out there. I'm still seeing the KNIGHT in shining armor[no it's just Global Warming shining on it] coming in to save the day for the DIMS-the Nobel Peace Winner AL GORE, being the candidate. Don't you just love an inside battle, like 2 gals fighting over the same guy but he wants neither, and they really don't want him either!
Instead of focusing on
March 26, 2008 - 10:37 ET by motherbeltInstead of focusing on Obama's relationship with Wright, which should
have been a nail in the coffin for his presidency, those attacking him
focused on themselves. On how unfair 'white guilt' is. Too much
whining about how hard it is to be white in America (haha), too little
focus on Obama -Leon
That is exactly what Obama intended with that speech: to change the subject.
The Wright story has Racial Legs, nobody is going to ignore
March 26, 2008 - 11:08 ET by JayTeeIf Obama and his GD Pastor can dredge up Slavery issues 150yrs after emancipation, 60 yrs after the Civil Rights Bill, and talk about the "poor Black man" after banking $1,000,000 in income for the 2nd year in a Row, and getting in excess of $ 100,000,000 in campaign contributions, the one Item I'm going to IGNORE is any more propaganda about how difficult it is to be BLACK in America, from the Racist Millionaire Candidate.
And come time to vote, many others will also IGNORE Obama. His message didn't reach us.
Where's "THE SPEECH" of a Lifetime this week!
March 26, 2008 - 10:37 ET by PawpawNWow, guess "THE SPEECH" of a LIFETIME must have gotten lost. No media attention this week! As the Church Lady on Sat Night Live used to say "Could it be......" We went from it being the best speech since Lincoln to being forgotten since the polls, which aren't being reported either, show it caused a drop in backing of BO, since I can't use middle name. Peoria played it, and then canned it! It didn't sell, so I guess maybe it was outsourced to other countries!
The Ron Paul Brownshirts Strike Again
March 26, 2008 - 10:47 ET by TinianThe Ron Paul Brownshirts strike again:
Of course, it's not about Democracy for these goons.
I don't quite see...
March 26, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Prester John...how taking the time to participate in the political process and following the rules qualifies as acting like "Brownshirts" and "goons".
Maybe if the supporters of the more conservative GOP candidates had been as energized as the Paul folks we wouldn't be faced with punching the screen for McCain.
Couldn't have said it better.
March 26, 2008 - 11:03 ET by sarcasmoBut let me give folks another hint (once again, I've pretty much given up) that would help Republican energy-levels IF they finally get the clue. 3664 is the key number, and it constitutes the hint. I wonder if anyone will figure it out? And while I'm on the subject of getting a clue about libertarians, here's an article I like except for the immigration part (long story, but IMO getting rid of the welfare state comes first on that).
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Everybody Knows That
March 26, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Tinian3664 is the key number, and it constitutes the hint. I wonder if anyone will figure it out?
It's the frequency, Kenneth.
Nope, unless you mean
March 26, 2008 - 11:33 ET by sarcasmoThe whine-frequency, maybe...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
You're Right
March 26, 2008 - 11:37 ET by TinianYou do whine 3664 times a day.
Tin, I see that those in
March 26, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberTin, I see that those in charge at Newsbusters somehow, amazingly, still tolerate your presence here. Why haven't you been censored yet, like our favorite (small l)ibertarian wanted?
Hey, they keep me around too.
March 26, 2008 - 11:57 ET by sarcasmoAnd you constantly whine. Imagine if your collective(ist) whinepower were harnessed for something like smaller government, instead! I have, but it's clearly a pipe dream, as you remain The Whiner...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Who cares if "they" keep you
March 26, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberWho cares if "they" keep you around, Paulbot? "They" should, and you should be the last person clamoring for someone's silencing, Mr Fraud. How very un-(small l)ibertarian of you.
Apparently you do, Whinebot
March 26, 2008 - 13:21 ET by sarcasmoSee above.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
"Apparently I do" what,
March 26, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Roger the Shrubber"Apparently I do" what, Paulbot?
"See above" where, Paulbot?
Am I a collectivist, or just a "pork barrel spending big gov't" type of guy? Make up your mind.
You are all over the place today. Just a normal day in Sarkyworld.
Care, Whinebot.
March 26, 2008 - 13:34 ET by sarcasmoAnd you've proven you care more for whining about libertarians than you do about small government. See above, just as I said.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
1. You are (as usual)
March 26, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Roger the Shrubber1. You are (as usual) mistaken. Pointing out YOUR douchebaggery is not "whining about libertarians". Your consistent over-abundance of misplaced arrogance and ego, though a common trait of (small l)ibertarians, is THE major downfall of yours, but I am not damning (small l)ibertarians as a whole. You merely give those poor buggers a bad name by being such an douche, such as when you call out for someone's banning on this site. Don't blame me for your hypocritical actions (another endearing trait of yours).
2. Once again, you are mistaking me for someone else when you illogically claim I "whine about small government"? Huh? I am sure your steel trap memory will surely pull numerous examples of my "big gov't collectivsm", just like you easily did with your last easily-debunked false claims (which makes you, once again, shocker, a douche).
Whoops, looks like you are stuck, once again, grasping at straws, ranting and raving about things that make little sense, and make you look quite douchey. Just another typical day in Sarkyworld.
Your whinepower
March 26, 2008 - 13:51 ET by sarcasmoIs solely focused on me. You prove my point yourself with your CONSTANT whining & meltdowns (and yes, I count every time you accuse me of BS as a meltdown) Whinebot! If you wanted smaller government, you'd advocate that instead of what you constantly do. Again, see above.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
A perfect non-answer. You
March 26, 2008 - 14:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberA perfect non-answer. You have no ammunition.
Have a nice day. you may go now.
Hey, you may go too!
March 26, 2008 - 14:37 ET by sarcasmoBut I think I'll stay, thanks!
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc I agree with you that
March 26, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Dan The Man 2Sarc I agree with you that these brownshirts did nothing wrong, they manipulated the political process. But, they were perfectly legal in their actions. What will come of this, nothing much and McCain will be selected as the GOP canditate. I do admire their consitancy in the political process and that is how politics is changed through actions like these.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I wasn't stupid enough
March 26, 2008 - 11:58 ET by sarcasmoTo call people peacefully exercising their rights "brownshirts." Sorry.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc read your history this
March 26, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Dan The Man 2Sarc read your history this tactic is exactly what the brownshirts did to get their guy in. Did not say jack booted brownshirts. The tactic is straight out of history. Also cant help if you are sorry, but a change of mind might help that.
Can you and shrubber take your argument to pm's? You two remind me of a couple of kids on the playground.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The addition of "jack booted"
March 26, 2008 - 14:04 ET by sarcasmoIs not needed. The Brownshirts were known for violence, not the tactics used by those who (unlike me) still have misplaced hope that the Republican party might want smaller government. Thus my label of "stupid" is totally historically accurate, like it or not. I repeat: Stupid.
And I'm not responsible for the Whiner's whines.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Read what I said "The
March 26, 2008 - 14:57 ET by Dan The Man 2Read what I said "The Brownshirts were known for violence, not the tactics used by those" and I agree the brownshirts used violence also to get the majority. But, they did monopolize teh voting precints, jsut like Paulbots are doing.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I stand by my words.
March 26, 2008 - 14:59 ET by sarcasmoIt's stupid. Period. And I was the one to mention their history of violence, which is what makes it so-stupid. And name-calling won't help, either. They did something legal, so find a way to deal with it. Somehow, the Republican party will survive.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
LOL, your buttons are easy
March 26, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Dan The Man 2LOL, your buttons are easy to push today. I did not call them names, mere pointed out that the brownshirts used the same tactics. It is legal and I wish them and you well with the process. I objected to your assertion that the tactiics were not the same. Basically it is politics and if you want to change a political party these are the tactics you may have to use.
The SBC in the 90's was being overun with those who were bent on changing the SBC to conform to the "moderate" and profane liberal views of Christian orthodoxy. In other words they were trying to transform us into the Episcopal church or some equivalent. They also used the tactics of spamming and getting elected onto important boards and committees. But in the end the conservatives won out and we undid the aboniation of changes that were done by the liberals.
I used brownshirts for two reasons, one because that was the term used and two I knew it would rile you.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
And I said it was stupid for one reason
March 26, 2008 - 22:37 ET by sarcasmoBecause history says so, too. I still stand by my words, and you were calling them brownshirts stupidly just like the other history-challenged dimwit. You admitted it in paragraph 2, while denying in paragraph 1, so you're getting the respect you deserve. It's stupid, stupid.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
agreed dan
March 26, 2008 - 14:05 ET by candanceWatching Sarc and Roger have a daily chest thumping contest is getting a little tedious.
Go back and count the number of times
March 26, 2008 - 14:08 ET by sarcasmoI've started it. Then imagine if all his whinepower (and basically the "Shrub Report" starts with a daily-whine, right??) were focused instead on smaller government, such as that mystery-number I mentioned which garnered 0 intellectual curiousity whatsoever and instead got me only another whinefest.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
come on sarc
March 26, 2008 - 14:14 ET by candanceI saw the comment about the frequency - he was just poking a little fun at you. Hardly anything that I would call whining.
So Roger likes to make fun of Ron Paul...why does it kill you so bad? Why do you feel the need to jump on him after every single comment, to attack anyone who tries to have a little fun with you, to name call nonstop every single day on here?
I don't mind poking fun...
March 26, 2008 - 14:22 ET by sarcasmo(see here)
But it's not the intellectual curiousity I'd have hoped for, because I got 0 from the Whiner-crowd. Goose-egg. Nada. Only WHINES. 100%. Meanwhile, the mystery number might be a key to McCain's eventual defeat or victory, it requires almost 0 effort to figure-out, works very well, and (unlike WHINES) actually works for (gasp!) smaller government.
Ron Paul's over for the Presidency. I doubt they'll even let him speak at the convention. OTOH, he's 100% for Congress for another 2 years. Wouldn't a mature (and even partisan) Republican want to "deal with it"? And speaking of my alleged namecalling to someone who's just been called a brownshirt isn't likely to get you much sympathy from me. Yawn. I call 'em like I see 'em, and I've called "Whiner." I'll stand by that one all day.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Wasn't even my comment, but
March 26, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberWasn't even my comment, but thank you anyway. Sorry if I get carried away, but I have a soft spot for infuriating arrogant asses, and will not come crying to the denizens of NB with "well HE started it first" like a five year old. It is an open thread, folks. People can say what they want here.
However, in the spirit of compromise, I will try to tone down the obvious pointing out of douchebaggery by assuming we all know when it is occuring. I will do what most of you do: tune out the pud.
Thanks Roger
March 26, 2008 - 14:38 ET by candanceWe all appreciate healthy discourse, but every day we watch it devolve into
-you're a douche!
-no, you're a douche!
And that gets a little redundant.
Not trying to censor anyone, but it is what it is.
Funny dodge
March 26, 2008 - 14:43 ET by sarcasmoBut everyone can go back and check who starts these whinefests, Whiner. Just because I stand up to you shouldn't make you pout, it should make you consider change from whining to advocating some aspect of smaller government we might both agree-on, but that's not your style. You're the Whiner, and you literally prove it every day, despite the fact that Ron Paul's Presidential run is TOTALLY irrelevant at this point, because it has been since Super Tuesday, but you whine-on.
Real conservatives are against McCain Feingold, which every "Shrub Report" has implicitly-defended for at least 2 months. You seem to literally define "arrogant ass," but somehow you still don't even see that you could focus all your considerable whinepower on smaller government. If only all this whinepower could be harnessed for other things...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc when my kids argued
March 26, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Dan The Man 2Sarc when my kids argued and they each had their points I told them to take it outside, where they settled it. We dont care who started it or what it is about. You two are like two families who cant remember what the argument was about and who started it but continue to perpetrate the fued. So which one of you is Hatfield and which one is McCoy? I imagine that your childrn will carry on teh family honor way into the next century.
I really dont care if you two are arguing over a cooking recipie, just stop taking up teh space on the threads. Because after the thread laps into the next page it is hard to keep track of what is a new comment.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
yeah guys
March 26, 2008 - 15:06 ET by MrShyThere's a woodshed thingy -- you can start a new forum to argue over RP.
Also, when the Open Thread gets loooooong long, my damn browser freezes, and there are often other juicy posts from the likes of Leon or other libt*rds on this thread, and I can't get in! (although, this is really NB's issue... they need to have it automatically stream to a second page.)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Tax Free Tips - Not Exactly a Big Starter
March 26, 2008 - 15:44 ET by CGattonSo HR 3664 calls for tax free tips....I don't think that's going to be a big starter for a Paul insurgency, lol.
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
gatton
March 26, 2008 - 15:47 ET by candanceTax free tips are a bogus idea because it prevents waiters from paying their fair share of taxes and also means their Social Security "investment" will be smaller when they're old enough to retire.
It's just a bad idea that favors no one but young waiters.
Wasn't Commenting One Way Or the Other
March 26, 2008 - 16:07 ET by CGattonlol - don't have an opinion, other than Social Security is neither social nor secure :o) - was merely responding to another notso (libertarian) idea from Sarc re knowledge of the number 3664. Of course, I would be most impressed if he could tell me the importance as well as the commonality of the following four numbers:
3.14159...
2.71828...
.0072973...
6.26606....x10[-34]
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Speaking of Ron Paul, are these the same guy?
March 26, 2008 - 16:45 ET by vrwc13http://www.time.com/...
http://dynamic.image...
v
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Separated at Birth?
March 26, 2008 - 21:35 ET by TinianThose are funny pics.
Unfortunately for our pet Paul supporter, however, here's something very interesting from your Time Magazine link:
While our pet Paul supporter gloated that Spitzer was being brought down, I argued that a true libertarian would decry (like Ron Paul) what happened to Spitzer.
Moral of the story?
There are two kinds of libertarians:
1) Ones that are libertarians out of principle.
2) Ones that are libertarians when it's cool or convenient.
Ooops! I forgot the third kind:
Ones who are so angry and confused they are completely irrational.
I think we all know the third type.
The sad thing is....
March 26, 2008 - 10:50 ET by Prester John....is that even with tons of Dems/Ind voting for McCain the Dems are likely to pick up at least 4 Senate seats and who knows how many Congressional seats.
McCain will be hamstrung from the get go. But then again he does seem to enjoy working with the likes of Kennedy, Feingold et al.
But then again he does seem
March 26, 2008 - 10:51 ET by motherbeltBut then again he does seem to enjoy working with the likes of Kennedy, Feingold et al.
And that is my biggest fear.
mb... Mine
March 26, 2008 - 12:40 ET by bigtimermb...
Mine too...especially when it comes to SC Judges...I am worried he will want they type of candidate for SC Judge that is for the World Court, International court type of critter...
I watched Glenn Beck last night and he told the news of the SC rejecting Pres. Bush's want for the mexican that murdered two gals bac