Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics  (Read 1866768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
I'm willing to have an honest discussion with conservatives on most issues, but when someone comes out as a flat-tax advocate, that's when I know for sure that their opinions aren't really worth discussing, and that they really haven't thought about the real-world ramifications of any of their ideas (or just don't care what those ramifications would be).

jaydubya plays pseudo-pragmatist and mooncalf ideologue with a wonderfully bipolar rhythm
duc

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
I'm willing to have an honest discussion with conservatives on most issues, but when someone comes out as a flat-tax advocate, that's when I know for sure that their opinions aren't really worth discussing, and that they really haven't thought about the real-world ramifications of any of their ideas (or just don't care what those ramifications would be).

jaydubya plays pseudo-pragmatist and mooncalf ideologue with a wonderfully bipolar rhythm


With Ringo Starr on the drums.
dog

Himu

  • Senior Member
If we shared all the money in the world equally, we'd all have about $860.

whew

just enough for a visits to the brothel
IYKYK

Mandark

  • Icon
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."  - Anatole France.


Wealthy people by definition are living under a government that shapes the social order to their particular benefit.  Whether or not you think that's a good thing, it's a pretty sweet deal for them and chipping in a few extra shekels is the least they can do to.  If that's too much, there's an opt out: become a dirty poor.  I'm told the kids refer to this as "going Galt".

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
not just their particular benefit; their extreme benefit. some libertarians would argue that the rich pay their share by so GRACIOUSLY purchasing expensive things and thus employing filthy proles instead of, i guess, saving it under their beds or in giant scrooge mcduck money bins, as though PURCHASING GOODS and EXPANDING THEIR BUSINESSES are noxious things they do merely out of a sense of elevated duty
duc

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
the one that gets me, though, is the finger-pointing by the clearly privileged (i.e. anyone with enough time to squander on the internets) at that largely fictional bugbear of an undercaste individual who "just wants something for nothing." of course, it's a fundamentally racist thing: the first image that leaps to their minds is that of a ghetto-bound black dude, dressed in an expensive raiders jersey displaying bling and uncashed welfare checks in equal proportion, staring the death stare back at shocked whitey with a look of "this MINE, bitch!" it's a fundamentally racist delusion at its core. in REALITYVILLE, population no-one who has ever read hayek and then extolled it in that twee collegiate voice on a web forum, MOST PEOPLE WANT TO WORK. most people WANT self-respect and dignity. most people WANT a decent, well-paying job, which you don't fucking get when you're poor, because the corporate elite are happy to turn people into unskilled low-wage drudges, with barely enough money to subsist, and at the price of basic human pride and dignity. if you DO get folks on the government dole, it's because you haven't tried to create a society where working actually *is* a noble thing, and because you worship the wealthy so much you refuse to hold them accountable for the existence of a large, unmonied undercaste.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 10:32:52 AM by Van Cruncheon »
duc

Mupepe

  • Icon
Actually all I'm contending is that one pays their share by paying, you know, their share.

When you're taxing things by percentage, if you have more or if you do more of what is being taxed, you kind of end up paying more tax.  Kind of how a percentage works.  Math.  Crazy.
A world without relativity.  Brought to you by JayDubya

Mupepe

  • Icon
Let's look at this way....

Propose a flat tax of 90%

The top 1% or hell... even top 10% of earners in the country can still live a lavish lifestyle on a tax of 90%.  The other 90% of the country?  They can't live at all.

Yes, that's completely equal.

Are you understanding relativity yet?

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
hell, the poor can't even live on a 5% flat tax as wages are pushed down further and futher because HAW HAW unskilled labor! maybe they shoulda got an education! BUT WHO WILL PAY FOR THAT HAW HAW! maybe they shoulda been born white and upper-class! life's only as fair as folks make it to be!
duc

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
you mean at the expense of MYSELF :smug
duc

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
in my mind?
duc

Mupepe

  • Icon
I guess you missed earlier debates in this thread where Drinky admitted how much he makes. 

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
dog

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
the one that gets me, though, is the finger-pointing by the clearly privileged (i.e. anyone with enough to squander on the internets) at that largely fictional bugbear of an undercaste individual who "just wants something for nothing." of course, it's a fundamentally racist thing: the first image that leaps to their minds is that of a fhett-bound black dude...

Actually?  You know what I first imagine at this point?  You guys.

You want expensive government programs, and you want others to pay for them.  It's totally cool in your minds to play off the ability to exploit the majority into voting themselves a raise at the expense of others, over and over again.

I have money and i dont mind paying taxes

Mupepe

  • Icon
I wouldn't say it's from being unprincipled, I'd say it's from being naive and misinformed.  And there are plenty of polls of Americans regarding the US budget, wealth distribution, history and current politics that back up my theory on them being misinformed.

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
i ain't gonna go around pitchin' my specific bona fides on a web forum, but i pay a pretty big whack in taxes -- and i don't mind because i have a great life by ANY standard, monetarily-speaking. if that money goes to creating MORE opportunity through education and a quality of life for the poor such that they can recognize, understand and pursue opportunity, PERFECTO. the "fairness" is thus: i take more from this world in terms of security and quality of life, and that security and quality of life is predicated on other people having enough such that they don't want to take it from me. when those with the least feel it is fair, then it is likewise fair by my measure, because they aren't going to demonstrate their discontent with the perceived unfairness in a way that leaves me with NOTHING. whine about coercion all you want, but people should NEVER sit idly by while 90% of the resources are controlled by less than 10% of the population; if they do, they're sheep. if the idea that other people can dictate the terms of your existence to you distresses you, well, there's still a few unsullied forests you can build a cabin in.

the discussion re: the inefficiency of our current bureaucracy and tax code is another beast entirely. i will say that the wall of bureaucracy works both ways: in as much as it distributes resources very inefficiently, it also blocks the effective stripping of resources and capital from one group to another when one of those groups has an overwhelming political advantage.

Quote from: WAT
Of course, we won't see any political game theorists here ranting about how this is illogical.  When middle-income folks vote against raising the taxes of upper-income folks, they're just crazy and voting against their own interest, it surely couldn't be out of principle.  When upper-income folks vote for raising the taxes of upper-income folks, that's just being principled, of course.

??? ??? ??? :lol ???

i THOUGHT i was being a little specious when i riffed on your political schizophrenia. ah hurrrrrrrrrr...
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 01:01:22 PM by Van Cruncheon »
duc

Mandark

  • Icon
What this all comes down to is that JD's notions of "equal" and "fair" are actually those words' objectively true definitions, based on immutable natural law, whereas ours are dirty socialist distortions.

Of course, if you ask him to prove any of this he gets very snippy about it.



spoiler (click to show/hide)
PS What's so inherently fair about a flat percentage, anyways?  Why not a flat lump sum like a poll tax?  Why not a logarithm?  Or a square root?  I knew I should have paid more attention in math.  Paging recursivelyenumerable.
[close]

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Tax revenue is not the only source of government revenue.
©ZH

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
I wouldn't say it's from being unprincipled, I'd say it's from being naive and misinformed.  And there are plenty of polls of Americans regarding the US budget, wealth distribution, history and current politics that back up my theory on them being misinformed.

That is a result of decades of anti-socialist indoctrination.  People these days believe that any tax increase will cause the economy to come to a screeching halt, although historically, that hasn't proven to be the case at all.  I bet most people have no idea that tax rates were in the 91-94 percent range for the highest tax bracket in the 1940s and 1950s.  Conservatards wax so nostalgically about the 50s that I bet they assume the tax rate was 10% or some shit like that.

That and people believe that they are so special that they will be millionaires or at the very least, six figure ballas.  If they can't actually be a six figure balla, the next thing they do is to pretend that they are (through massive debt) while bitching that the government is stifling their growth opportunities.  It's such a shame that baby boomers were unable to get over themselves but alas, they left us in this shit pile that we'll spend decades trying to climb out of, if we can.
🍆🍆

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Quote
f course, we won't see any political game theorists here ranting about how this is illogical.  When middle-income folks vote against raising the taxes of upper-income folks, they're just crazy and voting against their own interest, it surely couldn't be out of principle.  When upper-income folks vote for raising the taxes of upper-income folks, that's just being principled, of course.

No no, I totally get that you're following your principles and everything.  It's just that your principles are FUCKING distinguished mentally-challenged.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 06:08:26 PM by Creepy Old Guy »
yar

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
Tax revenue is not the only source of government revenue.

That's not fair

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
You want expensive government programs, and you want others to pay for them.  It's totally cool in your minds to play off the ability to exploit the majority into voting themselves a raise at the expense of others, over and over again.

Is that any worse than trying to exploit the majority into giving themselves a pay cut so that a rich minority can continue buying gold plated toilets?

Actually all I'm contending is that one pays their share by paying, you know, their share.

When you're taxing things by percentage, if you have more or if you do more of what is being taxed, you kind of end up paying more tax.  Kind of how a percentage works.  Math.  Crazy.

Nothing JayDubya said in this post is untrue, besides fairness is subject to opinion through the prism of one's ideology.

Also, Dr. Paul tutoring Obama on the constitution.  Like a boss.

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]
+1

Beardo

  • Member
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/29/durbin_illegal_alien_could_be_our_future_president.html

Apparently an elected Democrat thinks an illegal immigrant can be president one day. I bet all you ass cigarillo liberals have wet dreams about that scenario. I'm actually sure that a couple of you guys jerk off to that shit.
 "Oh my god we would be soooo progressive."

Also The king of hippies, John Lennon himself, might have actually been a republican towards the end of his life. HA HA.

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Jerking off over a Mexican becoming president? You done gone full distinguished mentally-challenged fellow now.
©ZH

Beardo

  • Member
Jerking off over a Mexican becoming president? You done gone full distinguished mentally-challenged fellow now.

:wag

I said "Illegal Immigrant."

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
My bad, forgot about Cubans and Canadians.
©ZH

Mandark

  • Icon
Apparently an elected Democrat thinks an illegal immigrant can be president one day. I bet all you ass cigarillo liberals have wet dreams about that scenario. I'm actually sure that a couple of you guys jerk off to that shit.
 "Oh my god we would be soooo progressive."

Wow.  Why the hate?

Beardo

  • Member
Just out of curiosity, what did everyone do with with their black man president pr0n? I'm guessing that shit isnt really as good as it once was.

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
how were you planning to spank it if john mccain won? there's yer answer, bub

that said, i massage my hog to my dream of a fat, lesbian, wheelchair-bound ginger female crypto-communist president who wears a burka; my porn tastes have LONG drifted from illegals in the white house
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 07:02:43 PM by Van Cruncheon »
duc

Mandark

  • Icon
There's your conservative attitude towards ethnicity, folks.  Not racist, fer sure.  But if they think anyone actively wants a member of a minority to succeed, they get real fuckin offended.


edit:  Also, like 90% of Beardo's posts are really sexualized (like that whole TSA kick).  I'd say it's creepy, but it's actually a lot more keeping with the tone of the board than the anger and bitterness.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 01:30:57 AM by Mandark »

Dickie Dee

  • It's not the band I hate, it's their fans.
  • Senior Member
how were you planning to spank it if john mccain won? there's yer answer, bub

I was about to correct that if john mccain and SARAH PALIN won...but Beardo is most likely another sad closet case with a Daddy Complex so I realized that didn't much apply.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
hey, when the bed's been shit, just keep shittin'
[close]
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 07:12:27 AM by Mamacint »
___


Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
My head will explode when Beardo waltzes in here and calls Spitzer and that interview racist
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Clearly Elliot Spitzer hates him cause he's a strong, conservative negro.


Also too, fucking Mittens:

Quote
Here was Romney in New Hampshire on Monday:

The people of New Hampshire have waited long enough. They want to see good jobs. They want to see rising incomes. They want to see an economy that's growing again, and the president's failed. He did not cause this recession, but he made it worse.

And he said something similar at the New Hampshire debate earlier this month:

He didn't create the recession, but he made it worse and longer.

But at his press conference today in Allentown, PA -- where he was highlighting a company that had closed, after President Obama touted it benefitting from the stimulus -- Romney backtracked on the he-made-it-worse line.

When NBC producer Sue Kroll asked the former Massachusetts governor why he believes that Obama's policies have made the economy worse -- when the economy is now growing (and not shrinking like it was in 2009), when the Dow is climbing (and no longer in a free-fall like it was in '09), and when the unemployment rate is down a full percentage point from where it was in Oct. '09 -- Romney gave this answer:

I didn't say that things are worse.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/30/6984657-romney-backtracks-on-argument-that-obama-made-economy-worse

This could turn out pretty badly for Romney. Tea baggers don't care if you lie, as long as your lies make Obamao look bad. Even a tacit acknowledgement that Obama's socialist, kenyan democracy killing proposals didn't make the economy worse is gonna have them fuming.

Course, he can just go on Fox news and continue repeating the same talking point he's been using for months as if nothing happened.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
It's not just tea baggers that he has to worry about here. Admitting the economy is better off than it was in 09 undercuts his entire economic message; hell it undercuts the entire GOP message. He'll be forced to either flip flop again or claim he was misquoted, but that type of shit won't fly considering he's the front runner.

Chalk it up as another win for Bachman, who will hammer him over the head with this and dare him to defend the correct, factual notion that yes the economy is better than it was.
010


Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
she's been an asshole for some time
[youtube=560,345]BjYpkvcmog0[/youtube]
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Okay, I don't usually like laughing at people's deaths, and I won't in this case either, but it really does prove an important point:

Quote
    A 55-year-old biker protesting New York State’s law requiring helmet use died at a hospital Saturday after striking his head in an accident.

    The Associated Press reports that Phillip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was riding with others through the town of Onondaga on Saturday afternoon without head protection, to protest the state’s requirement that bikers wear helmets.

    State Troopers told the Syracuse Post-Standard that Contos was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson when his bike fishtailed and he flipped over the handlebars, striking his head on the pavement. He was later pronounced dead at Upstate University Hospital. Police say that had he been wearing a helmet, Contos would probably have survived the accident.

    The ride was organized in part by ABATE (American Bikers Aimed for Education), according to a local ABC affiliate reporting on the accident. A spokesperson for the group said they didn't know if Contos was a member.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/moral-when-you-always-put-your-own-in

recursivelyenumerable

  • you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment
  • Senior Member
Quote
Here was Romney in New Hampshire on Monday:

The people of New Hampshire have waited long enough. They want to see good jobs. They want to see rising incomes. They want to see an economy that's growing again, and the president's failed. He did not cause this recession, but he made it worse.

But at his press conference today in Allentown, PA -- where he was highlighting a company that had closed, after President Obama touted it benefitting from the stimulus -- Romney backtracked on the he-made-it-worse line.

When NBC producer Sue Kroll asked the former Massachusetts governor why he believes that Obama's policies have made the economy worse -- when the economy is now growing (and not shrinking like it was in 2009), when the Dow is climbing (and no longer in a free-fall like it was in '09), and when the unemployment rate is down a full percentage point from where it was in Oct. '09 -- Romney gave this answer:

I didn't say that things are worse.



uhhh not that I agree or have any truck for Romney, but doesn't he probably just mean that Obama's policies made the recession worse than it otherwise would have been? worse relative to counterfactual != worse in absolute terms
QED

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Herman Cain: "I don't need no stinkin book learnin!"

Quote
“You don’t need foreign policy experience to know who your friends are and who your enemies are. And you don’t need foreign policy experience to know that you don’t tell your enemy what your next move is.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-you-dont-need-foreign-policy-experience-to-know-who-your-friends-are/

:usacry

Quote
Here was Romney in New Hampshire on Monday:

The people of New Hampshire have waited long enough. They want to see good jobs. They want to see rising incomes. They want to see an economy that's growing again, and the president's failed. He did not cause this recession, but he made it worse.

But at his press conference today in Allentown, PA -- where he was highlighting a company that had closed, after President Obama touted it benefitting from the stimulus -- Romney backtracked on the he-made-it-worse line.

When NBC producer Sue Kroll asked the former Massachusetts governor why he believes that Obama's policies have made the economy worse -- when the economy is now growing (and not shrinking like it was in 2009), when the Dow is climbing (and no longer in a free-fall like it was in '09), and when the unemployment rate is down a full percentage point from where it was in Oct. '09 -- Romney gave this answer:

I didn't say that things are worse.



uhhh not that I agree or have any truck for Romney, but doesn't he probably just mean that Obama's policies made the recession worse than it otherwise would have been? worse relative to counterfactual != worse in absolute terms

I don't think that argument works either way.

recursivelyenumerable

  • you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment
  • Senior Member
I agree it is wrong, but it is not actually self-contradictory.

(maybe this will be my slogan when I run for prez.

recursively '20 : he may be wrong, but at least he's internally consistent)
« Last Edit: July 04, 2011, 09:59:25 PM by recursivelyenumerable »
QED

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
on that Cain post...I must admit it's kind of weird seeing liberals use caricature black language to sum up everything Cain says. Not that I'm siding with conservatives against Jon Stewart's mockeries, I just find it odd hearing liberals online and irl doing it. Meh

I'm guessing Beardo will be here in 3...2..
010

recursivelyenumerable

  • you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment
  • Senior Member
i think liberal or conservative, people just jump at the chance to act like douchebags
QED

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
yea. Not saying liberals can't say dumb shit with respect to race; I've hung around enough to know that's not true. but still. Cain is a complete joke who's 15 minutes are coming to an end,
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
on that Cain post...I must admit it's kind of weird seeing liberals use caricature black language to sum up everything Cain says. Not that I'm siding with conservatives against Jon Stewart's mockeries, I just find it odd hearing liberals online and irl doing it. Meh

I'm guessing Beardo will be here in 3...2..

Wait, are you referring to the comment that I posted?

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
yea :fbm
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
yea :fbm

What? I thought "I don't need no stinkin book learnin!" was using caricature redneck language?

I think you're the one that has the racial issues, PeeDee.  :wag

Positive Touch

  • Woo Papa
  • Senior Member
white people insinuating black people are uneducated/can't is nothing new

stewart shoulda realized this beforehand
pcp

Mandark

  • Icon
Yeah, in terms of broad comedic stereotypes, "book learnin'" is the sorta phrase I expect put in the mouth of a Cletus rather than a Tyrone.

I don't think it's become common at all for liberals to take shots at Cain (or before him, Steele) using black stereotypes*.  Contrasted with how many people were and are unable to say anything against Palin without using sexist language.


spoiler (click to show/hide)
With the exception of The Daily Show spoofing him for his ham-handed minstrelsy.
[close]
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:55:22 AM by Mandark »

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
i think liberal or conservative, people just jump at the chance to act like douchebags

Yep.  Not much more to be said.
🍆🍆

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/giving-away-argument.html

I bet Bill Clinton watches this dude go from disaster to disaster and just laughs. jesus
010

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
I may have entered the Twilight Zone here, but why are Republicans pushing for major cuts to Medicare? :wtf

Edit: It sickens me that the Republican party is pushing for major cuts but won't budge on keeping taxes the same for rich people and it sickens me that the Democrats are giving them exactly that and more. What does that leave us with?  :-\
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:41:57 PM by Great Rumbler »
dog

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
I may have entered the Twilight Zone here, but why are Republicans pushing for major cuts to Medicare? :wtf

Edit: It sickens me that the Republican party is pushing for major cuts but won't budge on keeping taxes the same for rich people and it sickens me that the Democrats are giving them exactly that and more. What does that leave us with?  :-\

This should make it easier to understand.
©ZH

Mandark

  • Icon
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/giving-away-argument.html

I bet Bill Clinton watches this dude go from disaster to disaster and just laughs. jesus

What's this "the Republicans have already said they'd raise [the debt limit]" stuff?  Specifically, what is "the Republicans" synecdoche for in this case?  Sure, some of the leadership said they want to raise it, but even now there's a ton of doubt about whether they can get even half their caucus to vote for it.

Which means we've a liberal blogger being either dumb or dishonest (and Digby's too smart for the first) just to make the administration look super extra spineless, so that they and their readership can feel strong and principled by comparison, without ever having to accomplish even so much as a win with the local zoning board.

Political activism as sports talk radio sucks.  Don't be a JayDubya.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
I've gone far past being "disillusioned" with the Republican party, it's increasingly becoming outright hatred. Believing in a party and even in a particular politician is never a wise thing to do, because you're almost certainly going to be disappointed, but I figured that the Republican party had at least SOME common sense, and maybe they did, but this isn't the party I joined six year ago. And I have a feeling that's a line I'm going to keep repeating for a long time.
dog

Mandark

  • Icon
Quote from: David Brooks
Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

Oddly, Brooks keeps having these epiphanies about Republicans only after they get elected, while stanning shamelessly for them during the campaign build-up.  Funny that.

Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html

Typically not a David Brooks fan, but he really nails the current situation in this one.

When Cohen and I agree with Frum and Brooks, you KNOW something's rotten in the Republican Party
乱学者

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Quote from: David Brooks
Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

Oddly, Brooks keeps having these epiphanies about Republicans only after they get elected, while stanning shamelessly for them during the campaign build-up.  Funny that.

Or, to put it better: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2011/07/as-his-batshit-chickens-come-home-to.html

Quote
Here is the key paragraph from David Brooks' latest 800-word embarrassment:

    "But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative."


Here is how it would have read if David Brooks had a shred of honesty:

    But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, Over the past 40 years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.


The first version -- favored by every professional Beltway ball-washer in the media -- permits the David Brookses of the world to continue to play the role of the reasonable, detached witness, merely Observing-With-Alarm the final stages of the complete and completely unforeseeable (No one could have predicted...!) psychotic implosion of his Republican Party.

The second version -- the honest version -- puts Our Mr. Brooks (and the rest of his ilk) at the scene of the crime, squarely behind the wheel and driving the getaway car for the Party of God for virtually his entire adult life.

It just gets better from there.  Then again, I'm noted to be a guy who enjoys his polemics, so there you go.
yar

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/giving-away-argument.html

I bet Bill Clinton watches this dude go from disaster to disaster and just laughs. jesus

What's this "the Republicans have already said they'd raise [the debt limit]" stuff?  Specifically, what is "the Republicans" synecdoche for in this case?  Sure, some of the leadership said they want to raise it, but even now there's a ton of doubt about whether they can get even half their caucus to vote for it.

Which means we've a liberal blogger being either dumb or dishonest (and Digby's too smart for the first) just to make the administration look super extra spineless, so that they and their readership can feel strong and principled by comparison, without ever having to accomplish even so much as a win with the local zoning board.

Political activism as sports talk radio sucks.  Don't be a JayDubya.

I disagree. The republican party will not let the US default. Not only do polls show they'd be blamed for it, but (more importantly) Wall Street and the bond market would start exploding right before the deadline; eventually the big money folks will show up and tell them it's time to grow up. So no, it's not going to happen. This will be more than national parks being closed: everybody will get fucked.

With that in mind, I find it odd the WH is willing to sell the farm and kitchen sink to get congress to do something they're going to do anyway. I have no problem with the general idea of using this to get spending cuts; it also lines up with Obama's pledge to cut significant amounts of the deficit in his first term. But they're talking about more than a trillion in cuts and the GOP is still not happy. Nor are they willing to make the apparent trade Obama would like to make: spending cuts for irrelevant populist loophole stuff; this almost reminds me of republicans arguing health care costs were all about tort reform during that debate. Hell, republicans won't even agree to an employers payroll tax cut. That's why Digby is calling bs here, as are others.



010