They lost, can't get over it
DGDevin
January 5, 2010
Tea Party Movement Plans "Strike" for Jan. 20
As the one-year anniversary of President Obama's inauguration nears, the Tea
Party movement is planning a "strike" against corporations they call
responsible for "funding socialism" and "backing the leftist agenda" of the
new president.
Liberal politicians benefit from "large donors, labor union thugs, Hollywood
elites and major media propagating our destruction," contends strike
organizer Allen Hardage at the Tea Party Patriots web site.
In the wake of the economic downfall and the financial and auto bailouts of
the past year, the tea party movement sprang up to represent conservative
voters who felt disenfranchised. The election of a Democratic president
intent on promoting new government spending on things like health care has
spurred on the movement, prompting protests against big government and its
ties to big business.
Hardage writes that on Jan. 20 "the TEA Party movement moves into the next
phase, TEA 2.0, of taking our country back... We will demonstrate our power
and reach to those companies who employ individuals backing the leftist
agenda in every major city, every congressional district and every small
rural town in America to spread one unified message. That message is simple:
Stop funding socialism."
Hardage told Talking Points Memo that he will not release the companies
which the strike will target until Jan. 20. but that it will focus on
businesses "that are the largest supporters of the most liberal members of
Congress as well as those that support extreme liberal media outlets."
The strike has gained some interest online, where more than 4,000 people
have shown their support for the event on Facebook and other sites. If the
strike proves ineffective, according to Hardage, the tea partiers will hold
a march on Feb. 27, as well as a national boycott "of all of the companies
that do not stop donating to people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris
Dodd et al."
Republicans have tried to capture the energy of the tea partiers. GOP Rep.
Michele Bachmann said in a radio interview on Dec. 29 that if the Republican
party wants to succeed in the 2010 midterm elections, it needs to "embrace
the tea party movement with full arms."
But Suzy Khimm of Newsweek points out that the movement "has yet to pay off
for the Republican Party in terms of small-scale donations?the kind of
grassroots support that proved critical to bringing Obama and congressional
Democrats to power last year."
Up-and-coming conservative politicians like Marco Rubio in Florida, however,
could try to bring tea partiers into the Republican fold as he battles Gov.
Charlie Crist in a GOP Senate primary this year. If the tea partiers succeed
in electing politicians like Rubio, New York Times columnist David Brooks
writes, "their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become
a major force in American politics."
Phil_S
think about it. This is an accidental work of political genius. Sell the
country down the river while you're in charge...do all sorts of things
people are willing to get behind, like wage war, make your rich buddies
richer, torture "bad guys" in gitmo, etc., and then the economy goes in the
worst dumper since 1929 as soon as you're out. Turn it over to the other
party and let them take the fall for it. Finally, steal the country back by
simply stating, "he's had 4 years to fix it and look how far he has (not)
gotten." We'll have to wait and see just how short the public memory really
is and whether they are *that* stupid.
Arlowe
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6057569.shtml?tag=stack
This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
protest.
Lord Valve
We're not interested in getting over it. We're working on getting *rid* of it.
Watch us do it. ;-)
LV
RichL
<spits coffee all over the monitor>
Stinking Corpse of Ronny Reagan
>
> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>
>
Yeah .. If the skin heads, jew haters, KKK , and killers of
doctors performing legal procedures can protest , why not let
the rest of the lost and misinformed lemmings follow.
I think to make it equal though, the black booted thug
squads should be called out as they did in Seattle, Chicago,
and Pittsburgh and do some neocom head stomping if they leave
the confined parameters of parking lot 10 miles away from
the Capital, or show un-patriotic protest signs.
This tolerance of freedom can only go *so* far .
Tony Elka
"Phil_S" <psymond...@comcast.net> wrote:
Gore Vidal once said that we live in the United States of Amnesia.
Tony
Tony Elka
Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> We're not interested in getting over it. We're working on getting *rid* of
> it.
>
> Watch us do it. ;-)
>
> LV
I'd rather watch you order some RCA adaptors and plugs for your stock.
The last time I was in your shop, you were helpful enough, but I ended
up having to go to the local Radio Shack to work around what I needed to
do.
SEE you again in February Willie!
Tony
DGDevin
"Arlowe" <bare....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.31b27da1a...@gmail.com...
> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
It worn thin in the eight year apologists for the Bush administration used
it on a daily basis.
> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
> protest.
Sure, and the rest of us have the right to point out they're paranoid
morons.
WB
> We'll have to wait and see just how short
> the public memory really is and whether they are *that* stupid.
You know, you *may* not be that disappointed ...
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> Only leftists have a right to protest. If a conservative does it, it's
> terrorism.
It's sure creepy, watching a bunch of angry misinformed citizens with
guns talking about taking back their country, because they didn't like
the results of a peaceful election.
Tony
The Repair Guy
>Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> We're not interested in getting over it.
>> We're working on getting *rid* of it.
>> Watch us do it. ;-)
>
><spits coffee all over the monitor>
LV and a herd of similar-minded chickenhawks
are planning an assault on the White House
as we speak...
The Repair Guy
http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
The Repair Guy
>It's sure creepy, watching a bunch of angry
>misinformed citizens with guns talking about
>taking back their country, because they didn't
>like the results of a peaceful election.
And the last one wasn't even stolen!
WB
>> angry misinformed citizens with guns talking about
>> taking back their country, because they didn't
>> like the results of a peaceful election.
>
> And the last one wasn't even stolen!
>
Umm.. I still hear *birthers* going off around me ...
( ps ... he's a muslim too ).
A lot of folks not playing in tune, nor wired right.
adminattubezone.net
> Arlowe wrote:
> > DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>
> > This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
> > These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
> > protest.
Obama is actually pretty centrist as far as his policies go, that's
why
this tea party thing is going to fall flat in the long run: they're
flailing at
windmills and mirages.
>
> We're not interested in getting over it. We're working on getting *rid* of it.
>
> Watch us do it. ;-)
>
> LV
Worked last year, didn't it? ;-)
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:28:08 -0800, Tony Elka <shado...@shadowlane.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's sure creepy, watching a bunch of angry misinformed citizens with
> >guns talking about taking back their country, because they didn't like
> >the results of a peaceful election.
>
> Good example. Lefties have the right to protest because they are peace
> loving and infallible.
Peace loving for sure. However, we're not at all infallible, nor do we
claim to be. We might seem that way to some though, after eight years
of the Cheney administration, during the first six years of which they
controlled the house and senate as well.
Republicans like to say government can't do anything right and when
they're the ones in power, they damn well prove it.
But goddamn if they aren't better at marching in lockstep than the
Democrats will ever be. Party discipline they've got for sure.
Tony
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"
- Presidential Puppet George W. Bush
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> Believing that anyone with an opposing view is "misinformed" is
> essentially claiming to be infallible.
I do not believe that everyone with an opposing view is "misinformed"
but the people calling themselves tea-baggers sure are. Especially the
one with the sign telling the government to get it's hands off his
medicare, which is, of course, a government program in the first place.
> >Republicans like to say government can't do anything right and when
> >they're the ones in power, they damn well prove it.
>
> They sure do, and in a big way.
In multiple big ways, including catering to special interests at the
expense of the electorate combined with full-blown incompetence and
indifference.
>
> >But goddamn if they aren't better at marching in lockstep than the
> >Democrats will ever be. Party discipline they've got for sure.
>
> You have a strange definition of discipline.
I'm referring to solidarity. Does that terminology work better for you?
Tony
Arlowe
> "Arlowe" <bare....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mn.31b27da1a...@gmail.com...
>
>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>
> It worn thin in the eight year apologists for the Bush administration used it
> on a daily basis.
>
for fuck sake...
>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>
> Sure, and the rest of us have the right to point out they're paranoid morons.
Then it's ok for me to point out that you are a cock sucking
arsehole...
But I won't...
Look everybody agrees that Obama won, ok?
Just because he was elected president doesn't mean everybody has to
march lock step with what he wants...get it?
Les Cargill
> DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6057569.shtml?tag=stack
>>
>
> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
It wore out years ago.
> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>
>
I've been as quick as anybody to say "the tea partiers are morons", but
if you can find Michelle Malkin's three-hour thing on CSPAN, it's
pretty good. I don't agree with everything she believes in, but *she's*
not stupid.
It's just an attempt at grass roots politics the old fashioned way.
Yeah, they're not exactly sophisticated, but that's democracy for ya.
She's a sharp cookie, not at all what I remember from her being a
dissonant ... kinda crackpot on Fox ( which she no longer does ).
Just saying - I was surprised.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Jan 5, 8:30 pm, Lord Valve <detri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Arlowe wrote:
>>> DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/en...
>>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
>>> protest.
>
>
> Obama is actually pretty centrist as far as his policies go, that's
> why
> this tea party thing is going to fall flat in the long run: they're
> flailing at
> windmills and mirages.
>
Dunno - had greenspan not made his "mea culpa" on national TV ... last
year? I'd be a whole lot snarker about this.
The "elites" just don't have much of a track record right now. They
need to work really hard on that. The Obamanids are playing very
fast and loose with a bunch of scary policies right now, not
nearly as removed from the previous administration as you might think.
>> We're not interested in getting over it. We're working on getting *rid* of it.
>>
>> Watch us do it. ;-)
>>
>> LV
>
> Worked last year, didn't it? ;-)
>
McCain was never focused on winning, and bringing in Palin ... wasn't
going to work. It backfired, as a Hail Mary usually does...
I can't believe she's long-term viable as a candidate, but you
never know. I personally can't stand her.
--
Les Cargill
Voice of Reason
> In article <8ja7k55785tp5lbnefu0tprs55cc4l5...@news.easynews.com>,
>
> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
> > Only leftists have a right to protest. If a conservative does it, it's
> > terrorism.
>
> It's sure creepy, watching a bunch of angry misinformed citizens with
> guns talking about taking back their country, because they didn't like
> the results of a peaceful election.
>
> Tony
I don't think you understand the value of political dissent in a
representative democracy, Tony. Candidates paint a picture with
intentionally broad strokes during their political bids. After they
win their elections, they then begin the process of putting finer
strokes on the canvas. That is when it is every citizen's duty to be
watchful of exactly what picture is taking form and what those fine
strokes will mean for the long term prosperity of the nation. If a
presidential candidate runs on the promise of accomplishing X, Y and Z
that does not mean a victory at the ballot box gives that president a
mandate to accomplish those goals by any means necessary. The same
applies to congressional representatives. People are protesting the
legislative actions of Congress and the legislative agenda as it is
being set forth by the President. They are not protesting the results
of the election, but I realize it is convenient for you to claim such
since that allows you to misrepresent the majority of protesters are
poor losers rather than take the time to see both sides of the
legislative debate surrounding several monumental issues on the table.
Voice of Reason
> After serious thinking DGDevin wrote :> "Arlowe" <bare.ar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:mn.31b27da1a...@gmail.com...
>
> >> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>
> > It worn thin in the eight year apologists for the Bush administration used it
> > on a daily basis.
>
> "mummy! he hit me first!"
> for fuck sake...
>
It seems whenever some type of illogical or childish behavior on the
part of the Leftists is highlighted on this newsgroup, they really
only have two defenses. The one you just experienced makes me laugh,
as well. I suppose they don't understand that using ridiculous
behavior of the opponents to justify the identically ridiculous
behavior of their own is a very weak position. The other behaviorism
is to simply change the subject in an attempt to detract from facts
which disprove their positions. It's nice to see other people
recognize the former behavior, Arlowe.
> >> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>
> > Sure, and the rest of us have the right to point out they're paranoid morons.
>
> Then it's ok for me to point out that you are a cock sucking
> arsehole...
> But I won't...
>
> Look everybody agrees that Obama won, ok?
> Just because he was elected president doesn't mean everybody has to
> march lock step with what he wants...get it?
Oh, I get it. It's a shame others don't. I suspect they will get it
when their chosen leaders are booted out of office for not getting it,
either. Elections put people in charge, but they should never assume
that listening to the people is something that ends when they take
office.
Voice of Reason
> Arlowe wrote:
> > DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>
> > This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>
> It wore out years ago.
>
> > These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>
> I've been as quick as anybody to say "the tea partiers are morons", but
> if you can find Michelle Malkin's three-hour thing on CSPAN, it's
> pretty good. I don't agree with everything she believes in, but *she's*
> not stupid.
>
> It's just an attempt at grass roots politics the old fashioned way.
> Yeah, they're not exactly sophisticated, but that's democracy for ya.
> She's a sharp cookie, not at all what I remember from her being a
> dissonant ... kinda crackpot on Fox ( which she no longer does ).
>
> Just saying - I was surprised.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
I don't think Malkin is a stupid person, but she is a zealot. She is
dyed in the wool in the worst possible way. Of course, there are
plenty of counterparts on the Left who are equally unwilling to think
for themselves. They content themselves with spouting off party-line
politics which accomplishes nothing but further polarization. People
of her ilk, from both major parties, don't view the political process
as a means to resolve conflicts and promote the healthy growth of the
nation; rather, they can only view politics as a constant state of
war. I tend to think that they have lost sight of the beneficial
nature of always being willing to learn more about political theory
and expand upon existing theories. That's why we have such stagnation
on the level of ideas in this nation. They can only roll around in the
gutter of applied political science.
I wish more political analysts/commentators could be like Pat Caddell.
He calls it like he sees it based on universal principles which should
be important to all citizens and doesn't care if that ruffles the
feathers of his fellow Democrats.
DGDevin
>>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>>
>> It worn thin in the eight year apologists for the Bush administration
>> used it on a daily basis.
>>
> "mummy! he hit me first!"
> for fuck sake...
Pot--kettle-black, sunshine.
>>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
>>> protest.
>>
>> Sure, and the rest of us have the right to point out they're paranoid
>> morons.
>
> Then it's ok for me to point out that you are a cock sucking arsehole...
> But I won't...
Oh dear, another one whose sense of humor is entirely confined to situations
he approves of.
> Look everybody agrees that Obama won, ok?
> Just because he was elected president doesn't mean everybody has to march
> lock step with what he wants...get it?
Quote me demanding anyone (least of all you) has to approve of what the
Obama administration does. Lots of supposed liberals here have been
critical of a wide range of actions of the Obama administration, somehow our
resident Teabaggers and Birthers never see that, go figure. So by all means
criticize what I actually post, but don't make up shit I didn't post and
attack that instead--get it?
The placards, banners, tee-shirts etc. seen at these Teabagger rallies are
mind-boggling. The Anti-Christ Is In The White House; If Obama Isn't A
Communist Then Why All The Tsars; Obama's Plan--White Slavery; The American
Taxpayers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens; Karl Marx Would Be Proud, not to
mention the ones with just an illustration, eg. Obama as Hitler, Obama as an
African witch doctor, and so on. One has to wonder if these people were
born that stupid or if it's something that developed over time. But we're
supposed to believe these angry cretins speak for America? These are the
new patriots who will save the Republic? Many of these people can't even
spell the half dozen words on their placards properly, but they're the ones
who *really* know what's going on? Talk about dark comedy, and now just
pointing out the staggering stupidity, ignorance and bigotry on display at
Teabagger rallies causes some folks to get their underwear into a twist,
what a shame (but how amusing).
Lu R
They will get a chance at the next elections to air their views..how bout
let the govt get on with the business it was elected to do, THEN judge them?
Reps are such scum..
>
>
Tony Elka
<04bbf1eb-a9ad-43b0...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Voice of Reason <locust.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think you understand the value of political dissent in a
> representative democracy, Tony.
Sure I do. I also know when ignorant and justifiably angry citizens are
being exploited by the very forces that are screwing with them in the
first place.
Do you know who pays for the buses that carry those tea-baggers to their
protests? Dick Armey and his astroturf organization Freedom Works. A
genuine scumbag that guzzled at the Federal money trough for himself and
his cronies for years before deciding to work for "limited government"
for everybody else. It's totally sick and sad.
> They are not protesting the results
> of the election, but I realize it is convenient for you to claim such
> since that allows you to misrepresent the majority of protesters are
> poor losers rather than take the time to see both sides of the
> legislative debate surrounding several monumental issues on the table.
Plenty of them are still disputing everything from the President's
citizenship to his patriotism.
I can see the Democratic side of the legislative debate, but not the
other side because it doesn't exist, unless you're a fan of business as
usual.
The Republican party of "NO" needs a theme song, I suggest "Whatever it
is, I'm against it!" from the Marx Bros. movie Horse Feathers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
Tony
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
news:8ja7k55785tp5lbne...@news.easynews.com...
> Only leftists have a right to protest. If a conservative does it, it's
> terrorism.
What's really amusing about this is how right-wingnuts have perfectly filled
the shoes formally occupied by the looney-left without missing a beat, it's
an astonishing thing to witness. Dreadlocks, hemp skater shorts and sandals
have been replaced by camo jackets, cowboy hats and stretch pants on people
badly in need of dieting--but the level of mindless sloganeering is exactly
the same. Oh, the self-pity is the same too, that's to be expected I
suppose. Whine on, Spender, it seems to be all your kind have left.
Tony Elka
<c36d6234-8c90-41fa...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Voice of Reason <locust.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's why we have such stagnation
> on the level of ideas in this nation. They can only roll around in the
> gutter of applied political science.
There is one reason for political stagnation in this country: special
interest money. Eliminate that and we might actually get meaningful
legislation from both sides of the aisle.
It's my humble opinion that our elected officials should be held to the
same standard as judges. If they took money from lobbyists, they can't
vote on that issue. Period.
> I wish more political analysts/commentators could be like Pat Caddell.
> He calls it like he sees it based on universal principles which should
> be important to all citizens and doesn't care if that ruffles the
> feathers of his fellow Democrats.
The following is from: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911060036
Pat Caddell? Why would anyone believe Pat Caddell?
November 06, 2009 4:07 pm ET by Oliver Willis
The Chicago Tribune, on its Swampland blog, has a story today claiming
that the White House contacted a Democratic "strategist" and told him or
her not to appear on Fox News. The strategist is unnamed, and the White
House has vehemently denied the charge. The one voice in the Swampland
piece bolstering the claim is Pat Caddell, former pollster for Jimmy
Carter. Caddell is a Fox News contributor, and despite his work for
President Carter has a documented history of furthering conservative
misinformation.
Since his affiliation with Carter, Caddell has attacked the Clinton
administration, Janet Reno, and the Democratic party itself. Caddell was
recently featured on The Glenn Beck Show decrying what he described as
the "gangster politics" of the Obama administration.
So, maybe not the best person to back up an anonymous claim showing a
Democratic administration in a negative light.
And you wish more political analysts/commentators could be like that
pathetic horse's ass?
I don't think you have any business calling yourself "Voice of Reason",
to be honest.
Tony
WB
>
> I've been as quick as anybody to say "the tea partiers are morons", but
> if you can find Michelle Malkin's three-hour thing on CSPAN,
A caught some of that bull until the next "Weather on the 8s" came
on which was much more appealing ...
Arlowe
> "Arlowe" <bare....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mn.329c7da15...@gmail.com...
>
>>>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>>>
>>> It worn thin in the eight year apologists for the Bush administration used
>>> it on a daily basis.
>>>
>> "mummy! he hit me first!"
>> for fuck sake...
>
> Pot--kettle-black, sunshine.
>
>>>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
>>>> protest.
>>>
>>> Sure, and the rest of us have the right to point out they're paranoid
>>> morons.
>>
>> Then it's ok for me to point out that you are a cock sucking arsehole...
>> But I won't...
>
> Oh dear, another one whose sense of humor is entirely confined to situations
> he approves of.
>
>>>you were just being funny!...oh my gorsh!
And your only retort to sarcasm is snideness without wit.
>> Look everybody agrees that Obama won, ok?
>> Just because he was elected president doesn't mean everybody has to march
>> lock step with what he wants...get it?
>
> Quote me demanding anyone (least of all you) has to approve of what the Obama
> administration does. Lots of supposed liberals here have been critical of a
> wide range of actions of the Obama administration, somehow our resident
> Teabaggers and Birthers never see that, go figure. So by all means criticize
> what I actually post, but don't make up shit I didn't post and attack that
> instead--get it?
>
> The placards, banners, tee-shirts etc. seen at these Teabagger rallies are
> mind-boggling. The Anti-Christ Is In The White House; If Obama Isn't A
> Communist Then Why All The Tsars; Obama's Plan--White Slavery; The American
> Taxpayers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens; Karl Marx Would Be Proud, not to
> mention the ones with just an illustration, eg. Obama as Hitler, Obama as an
> African witch doctor, and so on. One has to wonder if these people were born
> that stupid or if it's something that developed over time. But we're
> supposed to believe these angry cretins speak for America? These are the new
> patriots who will save the Republic? Many of these people can't even spell
> the half dozen words on their placards properly, but they're the ones who
> *really* know what's going on? Talk about dark comedy, and now just pointing
> out the staggering stupidity, ignorance and bigotry on display at Teabagger
> rallies causes some folks to get their underwear into a twist, what a shame
> (but how amusing).
HuH???
Hold on shorty...wher the fuck did this come from???
Let me set this straight, my post was about your title dickhead.
>"They lost, can't get over it"
Remember??
That statement is demanding complacency, it is shorthand for; "you lost
the election, Obama is president, shut up & let him do what he wants".
My retort said (words to the effect of): "get fucked"
Voice of Reason
> "Arlowe" <bare.ar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I think you are guilty of misrepresenting the overall sentiment
expressed by your fellow citizens who oppose some of the actions of
the Obama administration and his party's members of Congress. You
deliberately use terms such as 'teabaggers' and 'birthers' while
knowing that those terms are derogatory in nature. If you wanted to
identify these protesters in a civil manner, you would describe them
as Tea Party Goers or Tea Party Activists. You make the situation
personal and hostile by doing such and detract from the issue at hand
which is that these Americans have every right to oppose any political
action they see fit as long as they do so in a legal manner.
You also choose the most radical and unintelligent of the Tea Party
Movement to highlight in an attempt to cast the entire collective as
radical and unintelligent. From what I have seen on the news, these
people come from all walks of life and all levels of education. The
overwhelming majority of them seem to take a sincere interest in
recent legislative actions and want to have their dissenting voices
heard. Personally, I think the way you frame your arguments concerning
people of this political movement is unfair. It is akin to someone
from the Far Right pointing out that some protesters in favor of
extending environmental protections were seen wearing Che Guevara t-
shirts, had hammers and sickles on their berets, and were carrying
misspelled signs calling the former President Bush a Nazi. That does
not mean the environmental movement as a whole should be reduced to
such a simplistic and unflattering state for political gain. Only an
idiot would make such a blanket reduction. You seem content to make
that type of a reduction about the Tea Party Activists. I believe that
type of generalization is the most common form of bigotry known to man
- the type of bigotry that makes one intolerant of opposing opinions.
Bruce Morgen
Excuse me, but "the
legislative actions of
Congress and the
legislative agenda as
it is being set forth by
the President" *are*
"the results of the
election," and by a wide
margin. That's why the
'baggers come off as
dumb whiners with anger
management issues and not
as legitimate protesters.
The only real legislative
debate was between the
corporate-DLC Dems and
the actually liberal Dems
-- the GOP simply decided
not to participate for
political reasons even
though the current Senate
proposal is chock full of
GOP committee input and
about as "socialist" as
NAFTA or the FDIC.
Voice of Reason
Would you be so kind as to provide a documented source that disproves
anything Pat Caddell has stated about politics since the Carter
administration? I don't want to read other people's opinions of his
presentation of factual information and expression of personal
opinions. I would like to read anything that proves he deliberately
misrepresented the facts about any politician, piece of legislation,
foreign or economic policy issue, etc.
Yes, I do wish more analysts were like him. I read a long article a
while back about how he remains very true to the principles of the
Democrat party even if the current leadership of his party does not.
He is a man who will call out a politician regardless of party if he
believed their agenda to unprincipled and dangerous for this nation.
Not many people will do such a thing in this day and age because they
have all sold their souls. Although ideologically opposed, Caddell
reminds me of Barry Goldwater. Goldwater saw the conservative movement
being hijacked by the religious right and was outspoken about just how
far the party had moved away from its founding principles. Caddell
speaks out about the same movement away from founding principles in
his party and is loathed for it. Fortunately, he doesn't care about
being well-liked by those he views as ideological hijackers.
As for your comments about special interests, I am in agreement. I
noticed you (I believe it was you) mentioned something about special
interests and the Republican party. It's good to know you understand
that the Democrats are also in the pockets of special interests. There
are no innocents in Washington, D.C.
Bruce Morgen
The 'bagger movement isn't
"grass roots" any more--
it's been coopted by multi-
millionaire media figures
like Glenn Beck and funded
with corporate cash via
former GOP pol Dick Armey's
"FreedomWorks" professional
PR machine. "FreedomWorks"
was actually selling
speaking slots at the DC
'bagger rallies for $10K a
pop to all comers -- they
really had that much
control over the poor fools
who attended. At this
point, it's all about as
"grass roots" as the
astroturf in a 1970s
vintage domed stadium.
Les Cargill
> On Jan 5, 7:26 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Arlowe wrote:
>>> DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/en...
>>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>> It wore out years ago.
>>
>>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>> I've been as quick as anybody to say "the tea partiers are morons", but
>> if you can find Michelle Malkin's three-hour thing on CSPAN, it's
>> pretty good. I don't agree with everything she believes in, but *she's*
>> not stupid.
>>
>> It's just an attempt at grass roots politics the old fashioned way.
>> Yeah, they're not exactly sophisticated, but that's democracy for ya.
>> She's a sharp cookie, not at all what I remember from her being a
>> dissonant ... kinda crackpot on Fox ( which she no longer does ).
>>
>> Just saying - I was surprised.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> I don't think Malkin is a stupid person, but she is a zealot.
I am not so sure now. There's a whale of a lot of pragmatism there. She
doesn't work for Fox anymore, has left the Beltway, pretty much has a
fortune from book sales, so she's probably more interested in being
more moderate now.
She's also specifically trying to get Lefty independents involved in the
Tea Party thing. After all, it's a variation on MoveOn.
Lets just say I learned a lot from the program, and what
I learned helps me understand it all a bit better. The posts
on Malkin's blog are still... not all the deep, but face it,
not all the kids are above average out there...
I'm not a fan, but she's on to something. She's certainly no
Derbyshire nor Hitchens.
Also also. I watched episode 12 of "History of Britain" again, about
English Romanticism. This isn't new stuff, this "thinkers" vs.
"feelers" thing....
> She is
> dyed in the wool in the worst possible way. Of course, there are
> plenty of counterparts on the Left who are equally unwilling to think
> for themselves.
Sure!
> They content themselves with spouting off party-line
> politics which accomplishes nothing but further polarization.
Meh.... I think the polarization is pretty much the point of
the game. It's the politics of identity.
> People
> of her ilk, from both major parties, don't view the political process
> as a means to resolve conflicts and promote the healthy growth of the
> nation; rather, they can only view politics as a constant state of
> war.
Hmmmmm.... what I would conclude after the 3 hour CSPAN thing is that
she is trying to reverse the tide of political alienation. Judging
from her website, the posts are about "kindergarten" level, and she
don't dig that deep, but when you can catch her stretching a bit, she's
got depth.
But her point is echoed in ESR's blog:
"Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein argued tellingly in their 1994
book The Bell Curve that 20th-century American society had become a
remarkably effective machine for spotting the cognitively gifted of all
socioeconomic and racial backgrounds and tracking them into careers that
would maximize their output. They pointed out, though, that the
�educated class� produced by this machine was in danger of becoming
self-separated from the mass of the population. I agree with both
arguments, and I think David Brooks and Will Collier are pointing us at
the results."
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1551#more-1551
It's a repeat of the Robert Strange Macnamara syndrome...
> I tend to think that they have lost sight of the beneficial
> nature of always being willing to learn more about political theory
> and expand upon existing theories. That's why we have such stagnation
> on the level of ideas in this nation. They can only roll around in the
> gutter of applied political science.
>
I could not agree more.
I have just recently discovered Rene Girard ( he has a five-part thing
on National Review's "Uncommon Knowlege" series which is great ), and
for an actual French narrative-hacker, he has some surprisingly
cogent things to say about why this may be. He's gone from
lit-crit to anthropology, and has a *real* killer anthropological
theory about the nature of human society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard
I think if we understand the nature of conflict in society, it
can be neutralized, or at least attenuated. This, to me, is the
first thing I have ever seen that seems solid in this
area of inquiry. This could be huge. If we can break the
human-sacrifice habit...
And yes, it corners on ( maybe centers on ) religion. He
says Christianity is the first system of thought which stops
the heroic-mythic emphasis on the cycle of death-and-deification
of "more primitive" religions/social systems*. He actually
defines a trade-space for this, which dumb ole me sees as
a critical development.
* I just mean older - sorry.
> I wish more political analysts/commentators could be like Pat Caddell.
> He calls it like he sees it based on universal principles which should
> be important to all citizens and doesn't care if that ruffles the
> feathers of his fellow Democrats.
Well, maybe the marketplace will begin to reward depth again. Charlie
Rose seems to do well; Don Boudreaux has a great blog/podcast
system going... as off as he could be, Wm. F. Buckley did this
country a great service by inventing political TV. Compared to
my parent's generation, we're all a lot better than they were.
All things being equal, I think it's all getting better, if we
don't just go insane and kill half the people off. Girard talks
about that, too - apocolysm.
--
Les Cargill
Voice of Reason
> Voice of Reason <locust.of.cont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you understand the value of political dissent in a
> > representative democracy, Tony.
>
> Sure I do. I also know when ignorant and justifiably angry citizens are
> being exploited by the very forces that are screwing with them in the
> first place.
>
> Do you know who pays for the buses that carry those tea-baggers to their
> protests? Dick Armey and his astroturf organization Freedom Works. A
> genuine scumbag that guzzled at the Federal money trough for himself and
> his cronies for years before deciding to work for "limited government"
> for everybody else. It's totally sick and sad.
>
Who pays to bus in Democrats to their protests? Come on, Tony. You
know how this sick game is played, so only presenting one side as if
the practice is limited to one side is a bit disingenuous. Both sides
are funded by such groups. It doesn't make it right, but until this
nation passes some legislation banning these types of groups or sets
limits on how they are permitted to use their funds, this will
continue on both sides. I don't see that happening because such groups
are perfectly constitutional and they are permitted to use their funds
according to specific rules related to political donations.
> > They are not protesting the results
> > of the election, but I realize it is convenient for you to claim such
> > since that allows you to misrepresent the majority of protesters are
> > poor losers rather than take the time to see both sides of the
> > legislative debate surrounding several monumental issues on the table.
>
> Plenty of them are still disputing everything from the President's
> citizenship to his patriotism.
>
> I can see the Democratic side of the legislative debate, but not the
> other side because it doesn't exist, unless you're a fan of business as
> usual.
>
Again, I think that's a bit insincere on your part. You know the
opposition has offered up some reform items for consideration in the
health care debate. You may not think those types of reforms are
enough. That's perfectly acceptable, as you are entitled to your
opinion. But reducing the argument down to either being in favor of
what one party wants or being in favor of nothing is simply an
inaccurate description of the situation. Then again, once you have dug
your trench and prepared for war, there is no middle ground and you
lose the ability to see room for compromise.
I don't have a horse in this race which makes our discussion merely
one of observation and ideas. I am not a partisan and do not support
either major party. I do, however, believe in being honest and civil
when discussing politics.
Les Cargill
> In article
> <c36d6234-8c90-41fa...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Voice of Reason <locust.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's why we have such stagnation
>> on the level of ideas in this nation. They can only roll around in the
>> gutter of applied political science.
>
>
> There is one reason for political stagnation in this country: special
> interest money. Eliminate that and we might actually get meaningful
> legislation from both sides of the aisle.
>
Nah. I can't do a quick paragraph, but it really doesn't work out
that way.
The only way to make special interests go away is to get
rid of all legislation that makes it necessary. That can't
really happen.
> It's my humble opinion that our elected officials should be held to the
> same standard as judges. If they took money from lobbyists, they can't
> vote on that issue. Period.
>
>
Serious people are looking hard at this. I dunno if it'll change
or not. And I don't know that it matters.
Part of the problem is that PAC money is legitimate political speech.
I really think it's a hangover from the '90s, with the Contract
With America thing missing several good points and emphasizing
tenure over other more important things. Before that, you had
"lifetime" pols, who, unless they just rotted, got stuff done.
Now congress is grad school for lobbyists.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Voice of Reason
No, Bruce, that is actually not the case. The winning candidate/party
runs on a promise to attempt to accomplish certain things. They then
bring forth the specifics in the process of accomplishing those
things. If the specifics are not to the liking of the citizenry, then
it is their duty to publicly oppose those specifics. The legislative
process is arduous and many revisions should take place to create a
piece of legislation that serves its purpose most efficiently while
meeting with the approval of the majority of the citizenry.
Would you be so kind as to present the group with the last five or so
polls (from reputable polling sources) showing the level of support
for various legislative plans of this current administration?
Tony Elka
<df3da124-680e-40fd...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Voice of Reason <locust.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you are guilty of misrepresenting the overall sentiment
> expressed by your fellow citizens who oppose some of the actions of
> the Obama administration and his party's members of Congress. You
> deliberately use terms such as 'teabaggers' and 'birthers' while
> knowing that those terms are derogatory in nature.
These terms are derogatory only because the movements they refer to are
so ridiculous.
Tony
Master Betty
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-DEE75...@82-136-209-74.ip.telfort.nl...
I use it because it's funny.
RichL
> one.
Wow. Non-sequitur of the year.
RichL
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:03:13 -0800, Tony Elka
> <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1bk7k5lfki2ff6cr8...@news.easynews.com>,
>> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Believing that anyone with an opposing view is "misinformed" is
>>> essentially claiming to be infallible.
>>
>> I do not believe that everyone with an opposing view is "misinformed"
>> but the people calling themselves tea-baggers sure are. Especially
>> the one with the sign telling the government to get it's hands off
>> his medicare, which is, of course, a government program in the first
>> place.
>
> So one misinformed person in a crowd makes the whole movement
> misinformed? I'll have to remember that.
Heh....I could fill several newgroup posts with misinformation
circulated by the tea partiers and the corporate interests that support
them. Perhaps one link would suffice?
http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/12/the-grinches-that-stole-america/
Basically, these folks want to recreate an America that hasn't existed
since the civil war. All amendments to the constition from the 13th
onward are conveniently ignored in their ridiculous claims of
unconstitutionality.
Browse through other pages on that web site. It's rife with
misunderstanding of the Constitution as currently amended, hyperbole of
the highest order, and, simply put, exploitation of people who don't
have the sense to know better.
"a group of US Senators is out to rip from us our liberties and rights
to be free."
"Through this healthcare legislation, our economy will be completely
gutted and permanently crippled. Our rights will be trampled, our
liberties tossed out the window and our constitution destroyed."
"Listen Up! While everyone is focused on healthcare, our sneaky senate
is trying to pass the amnesty bill fast. Making illegals legal within 24
hours of applying and filling out papers. This includes all, even
criminals."
"I'm fearful of the 3rd option here, they are thinking Communism was
right"
"Indeed, Congress (under the guise of Reid, "Princess" Pelosi, et al.)
appears to be guilty of sedition against the U.S. CONSTITUTION and the
PEOPLE of the United States of America."
"These people, I can't bring myself to address them as men and women.
They have no integrity and nothing more than thugs to be spat upon.
Please do this at the very first opportunity."
"folks, the word many of you are tiptoeing around is revolution. Its a
scary word for many of us but one which we all know is imminent unless
some changes happen fast. there is a breaking point that all of us have
when enough is enough. this breaking point is different for everybody
but sooner or later we will all be broken and we will do whatever it
takes to take back our nation. If it comes to arms it comes to arms. We
cannot stand idley by and watch the greatness of our country come
tumbling down. Marching is good, letters are good but there needs to be
more of them. this is a call to action. we will be a socialist country
if we don't stand up right now."
"We have an Adolf Hitler in our nation's highest seat and he needs to be
removed BEFORE he inflicts Socialism on the United States of AMERICA."
"Hasn't anybody wondered why Obama is trying to transform (more like
destroy) America with LIGHTENING SPEED ??? His plan is to bankrupt the
nation so he can usher in "The New World Govermment" and the only way he
can do it is to collaspe the economy."
"This morning when if woke up and the Senate had passed the this
unconstitutional bill I got to thinking that I am armed and I think that
there is more than just me that believes that they will only be able to
push the People so far and there is going to be blood."
Master Betty
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
You won't get as many laughs with that. Unless they're making fun of you.
RichL
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:20:13 -0800, Tony Elka
> <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>
>> There is one reason for political stagnation in this country:
>> special interest money. Eliminate that and we might actually get
>> meaningful legislation from both sides of the aisle.
>
> politicians to do when there is no special interest involved?
>
>> It's my humble opinion that our elected officials should be held to
>> the same standard as judges. If they took money from lobbyists,
>> they can't vote on that issue. Period.
>
Interesting that you refer to it as "free" when you have to pay to be
heard.
RichL
Given that the Republicans in Congress do nothing but oppose what the
sitting party proposes, irony noted.
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:20:13 -0800, Tony Elka <shado...@shadowlane.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is one reason for political stagnation in this country: special
> >interest money. Eliminate that and we might actually get meaningful
> >legislation from both sides of the aisle.
>
> Pretty much impossible to do. Is there anything left for a politicians to
> do when there is no special interest involved?
Yes, attempt to do some good through meaningful legislation that
benefits the constituents and the country. This may come as a surprise
to you but some people enter public service hoping to be able to do just
that.
Take away legalized bribery and that can happen more often.
>
> >It's my humble opinion that our elected officials should be held to the
> >same standard as judges. If they took money from lobbyists, they can't
> >vote on that issue. Period.
>
> No political contributions means no free speech.
Some on the Supreme Court actually agree with that particular idiocy.
That's both sad and surreal.
Tony
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> Umm, yeah... and some people only call Obama a nigger because he is one.
Ray Bradbury would be disgusted to know that you're using a name based
upon one of his works. You racist dim-witted loser.
Tony
Bruce Morgen
Moreover, afaik the teabaggers
(not being aware of the sexual
connotation of the term) named
themselves and "birther" is a
simple extrapolation of their
ludicrous raison d'etre.
Bruce Morgen
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:56:45 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> So one misinformed person in a crowd makes the whole movement
>>> misinformed? I'll have to remember that.
>>
>>Heh....I could fill several newgroup posts with misinformation
>>circulated by the tea partiers and the corporate interests that support
>>them. Perhaps one link would suffice?
>>
>>http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/12/the-grinches-that-stole-america/
>
>You *have* to be kidding.
>
>And MoveOn.org doesn't have pages and pages of ridiculous "information"
>and banter?
>
>Oops, I forgot the rule... lefties are infallible.
Lefties are far from
"infallible," but they
generally sport three-
digit IQ and have some
sane idea of what The
Constitution as properly
amended as per its own
procedures and legally
interpreted by the
SCOTUS as per a couple
of centuries of
precedent actually
guarantees and prohibits.
Bruce Morgen
That is emphatically *not*
how a republic operates --
the citizens designate
representives who then
legislate on their behalf,
as opposed to a true
democracy where the law
must be approved by a
majority of the citizenry.
If the popular will had
the final say, the current
health care proposal would
have a strong public
option along the lines of
a Medicare buy-in for all
-- at least that's what
most of the polling tells
us. Of course polling is
not sufficiently accurate
and often depends on the
precise wording of the
questions posed -- so the
only way the actual
popular will could be
determined would be via
national referendum,
which would essentially
comprise walking away
from the republican (note
the lower-case "r") ideal
in favor of simple
majority rule, aka pure
democracy. One thing the
founders unanimously
agreed upon was the
impracticability of
government by referendum,
which is why we have a
more or less democratic
(note the lower-case
"d") republic as per the
duly amended and
interpreted Constituion.
The is no such "duty to
oppose" the specifics
formulated by Congress,
there is a general right
to freedom of speech that
opposing citizens are
constitutionally entitled
to exercise. Iow, the
'bagger and birther
contingents are free to
incoherently and
ignorantly bitch and moan
-- and I am similarly
free to call bitching and
moaning when and as I see
them.
>
>Would you be so kind as to present the group with the last five or so
>polls (from reputable polling sources) showing the level of support
>for various legislative plans of this current administration?
>
No, I wouldn't -- Usenet
is a minor pastime for me
and I will not allow it
to become a time sink. I
personally don't much
like the current health
care proposal, but given
the political realities
involved it's plainly the
best than could be
obtained and the very
first such proposal in a
century (Theodore
Roosevelt forst advocated
health care reform, and
more recent efforts began
with Harry Truman) to
actually stand a chance
of becoming law. It's
not a great start, but
it's a start toward what
the rest of the
industrialized world has
already had for over six
decades.
Do your own homework if
you have a point to make,
but do consider the
constitutional duties of
the legislative branch
and realize the under the
Constitution "the popular
will" is expressed on
Election Day alone, and
that other expressions
purporting to be "the
popular will" have no
constitutional role or
bearing on legislative
outcomes -- or perhaps
you feel Congress should
have legislated based on
speeches and signs from
the so-called "Million
Man March" back in '95,
which was an order of
magnitude larger than
anything the 'baggers
and birthers can dream
of mustering this year.
NNB
Bruce Morgen
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:20:13 -0800, Tony Elka <shado...@shadowlane.com>
>wrote:
>
>>There is one reason for political stagnation in this country: special
>>interest money. Eliminate that and we might actually get meaningful
>>legislation from both sides of the aisle.
>
>Pretty much impossible to do. Is there anything left for a politicians to
>do when there is no special interest involved?
>
>>It's my humble opinion that our elected officials should be held to the
>>same standard as judges. If they took money from lobbyists, they can't
>>vote on that issue. Period.
>
>No political contributions means no free speech.
The equation of money with
speech is the biggest
crock of rhetorical
bullshit since "separate
but equal."
Bruce Morgen
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:08:39 +1100, "Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Arlowe" <bare....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:mn.31b27da1a...@gmail.com...
>>> DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6057569.shtml?tag=stack
>>>
>>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
>>> protest.
>>
>>They will get a chance at the next elections to air their views..how bout
>>let the govt get on with the business it was elected to do, THEN judge them?
>>Reps are such scum..
>
>Can't oppose anything the sitting party does. Another rule noted.
You are free to oppose
and others are equally
free to deride the
quality and expression
of that opposition --
meanwhile, Congress
goes about its
constitutional duties.
Bruce Morgen
>Rich, you really need to be evaluated for Alzheimer's.
That just might be the
weakest ad hominem of
Spender's illustrious
career living up to
his handle -- I now
declare him officially
and utterly....SPENT!
Arlowe
Not free as in "free health care" :/
Freedom of speech. that includes the right to protest regardless who
occupies the WH.
Arlowe
> "Arlowe" <bare....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mn.31b27da1a...@gmail.com...
>> DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6057569.shtml?tag=stack
>>
>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to protest.
>
> They will get a chance at the next elections to air their views..how bout let
> the govt get on with the business it was elected to do, THEN judge them? Reps
> are such scum..
>>
>>
What would you know about American politics?
And before you start calling others scum, how about scraping the shit
off of New Parlament House.
You look back into the history of the ALP & you will find plenty of
corruption.
Right-wingers hate America
>
> Only leftists have a right to protest. If a conservative does it, it's
> terrorism.
>
When democrats protest, wingnuts call them anti-patriotic, terrorists,
and the black booted goon squad shows up. When the wingnuts protests,
Faux Blues has to use old film footage of past gatherings to show
that anyone showed up !
sam booka
things, said, "Is this on?"
news:lI6dnRY1z6sHLd7W...@centurytel.net:
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> We're not interested in getting over it.
>>> We're working on getting *rid* of it.
>>> Watch us do it. ;-)
>>
>><spits coffee all over the monitor>
>
> LV and a herd of similar-minded chickenhawks
> are planning an assault on the White House
> as we speak...
>
> The Repair Guy
> http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
>
Do they still have that two foot square charred black patch and plaque on
the roof commemorating the last time we burnt it down in 1812? Sorry
'bout that... :p
--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams
sam booka
said, "Is this on?" news:mn.332d7da1b...@gmail.com:
> DGDevin brought next idea :
>> "Arlowe" <bare....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mn.329c7da15...@gmail.com...
>>
>>>>> This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
>>>>
>>>> It worn thin in the eight year apologists for the Bush
>>>> administration used it on a daily basis.
>>>>
>>> "mummy! he hit me first!"
>>> for fuck sake...
>>
>> Pot--kettle-black, sunshine.
>>
>>>>> These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
>>>>> protest.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, and the rest of us have the right to point out they're
>>>> paranoid morons.
>>>
>>> Then it's ok for me to point out that you are a cock sucking
>>> arsehole... But I won't...
>>
>> Oh dear, another one whose sense of humor is entirely confined to
>> situations he approves of.
>>
>>>>Oh jeezus...lol
>>>>you were just being funny!...oh my gorsh!
> And your only retort to sarcasm is snideness without wit.
>
>>> Look everybody agrees that Obama won, ok?
>>> Just because he was elected president doesn't mean everybody has to
>>> march lock step with what he wants...get it?
>>
>> Quote me demanding anyone (least of all you) has to approve of what
>> the Obama administration does. Lots of supposed liberals here have
>> been critical of a wide range of actions of the Obama administration,
>> somehow our resident Teabaggers and Birthers never see that, go
>> figure. So by all means criticize what I actually post, but don't
>> make up shit I didn't post and attack that instead--get it?
>>
>> The placards, banners, tee-shirts etc. seen at these Teabagger
>> rallies are mind-boggling. The Anti-Christ Is In The White House; If
>> Obama Isn't A Communist Then Why All The Tsars; Obama's Plan--White
>> Slavery; The American Taxpayers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens; Karl
>> Marx Would Be Proud, not to mention the ones with just an
>> illustration, eg. Obama as Hitler, Obama as an African witch doctor,
>> and so on. One has to wonder if these people were born that stupid
>> or if it's something that developed over time. But we're supposed to
>> believe these angry cretins speak for America? These are the new
>> patriots who will save the Republic? Many of these people can't even
>> spell the half dozen words on their placards properly, but they're
>> the ones who *really* know what's going on? Talk about dark comedy,
>> and now just pointing out the staggering stupidity, ignorance and
>> bigotry on display at Teabagger rallies causes some folks to get
>> their underwear into a twist, what a shame (but how amusing).
>
> HuH???
> Hold on shorty...wher the fuck did this come from???
>
> Let me set this straight, my post was about your title dickhead.
>>"They lost, can't get over it"
> Remember??
>
> That statement is demanding complacency, it is shorthand for; "you
> lost the election, Obama is president, shut up & let him do what he
> wants".
>
> My retort said (words to the effect of): "get fucked"
Not only have the Republicans "gotten over it," they are planning an
assault so ferocious that 'RATs are already resigning in droves, refusing
to run in 2010. Only a bunch of screwups like the Obama Mutual Admiration
Society could fuel a backlash fierce enough to eclipse both the Nixon
Landslides and the Reagan Revolution. This has to be some kind of fzckup
record for a freshman government not even having one year under its belt,
cowering from their own tar and feather cooking constituents. Should the
title be, "They won, can't run" instead? :p
DGDevin
> HuH???
> Hold on shorty...wher the fuck did this come from???
Reading comprehension difficulties? Or just general cognitive disability?
> Let me set this straight, my post was about your title dickhead.
>>"They lost, can't get over it"
> Remember??
It's a well-known phrase in a.g.a., used by those who delighted in a decade
of Democratic election defeats and who suggested (frequently) that anyone
criticizing the Bush administration should shut up and wait for the next
election. I appreciate the irony of the shoe now being on the other foot,
if you don't--tough.
> That statement is demanding complacency, it is shorthand for; "you lost
> the election, Obama is president, shut up & let him do what he wants".
No, that is entirely your own construction, I posted no such thing. I not
only believe that people have the right to protest, they almost have the
duty,it's important to let elected officials know when their actions are
unpopular. However protesting and behaving like a thumb-less moron are not
the same thing. Carrying a placard that announces "We came unarmed (this
time)" is the act of a moron, and yet plenty of folks (including some in
a.g.a.) are now making thinly-veiled threats that their displeasure with the
Obama administration can and should be expressed with violence. Many are
also raving away about commies and Marxists and baby killers and who knows
what--again, protesting in terms that marks you as an idiot is fair game for
commentary. Yes, protest is a right, but protesting according to what Glen
Beck babbled on the radio this morning is the act of a cretin. *Informed*
protest is fine, ignorant placard-waving is laughable. If you don't
appreciate the humor, well that's your problem, not mine.
> My retort said (words to the effect of): "get fucked"
Naturally, it's what you're capable of, nobody expected anything better.
DGDevin
"Voice of Reason" <locust.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df3da124-680e-40fd...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I think you are guilty of misrepresenting the overall sentiment
expressed by your fellow citizens who oppose some of the actions of
the Obama administration and his party's members of Congress. You
deliberately use terms such as 'teabaggers' and 'birthers' while
knowing that those terms are derogatory in nature. If you wanted to
identify these protesters in a civil manner, you would describe them
as Tea Party Goers or Tea Party Activists.
**********
I use terms appropriate to those I'm describing. Someone carrying a placard
claiming Obama's goal is "white slavery" isn't an activist, he's a moron
(much less someone claiming Obama is the Anti-Christ). Likewise someone who
insists that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. despite all available evidence
being to the contrary is merely a zealot, and I feel under no obligation to
spare the feelings of zealots. I viewed some of those protesting various
actions of the Bush administration in the same light BTW, as anyone who
considers Che Guevara a hero is just as much an idiot as someone who trusts
Glenn Beck. I call 'em like I see 'em, but some folks get an upset tummy
when it's their side being criticized--too bad for them. Did you ever stand
up to chide those who used unflattering names in reference to those
protesting actions of the Bush administration? No? But now you want
everyone to stay polite and civil, at least *some* of us. Sorry sport, your
crocodile tears are unconvincing.
DGDevin
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0r-dnYXMbO0pjNnW...@supernews.com...
> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:25:34 -0800, Tony Elka
>> <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <df3da124-680e-40fd...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Voice of Reason <locust.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you are guilty of misrepresenting the overall sentiment
>>>> expressed by your fellow citizens who oppose some of the actions of
>>>> the Obama administration and his party's members of Congress. You
>>>> deliberately use terms such as 'teabaggers' and 'birthers' while
>>>> knowing that those terms are derogatory in nature.
>>>
>>> are so ridiculous.
>>
>> one.
>
You weren't *really* expecting Spender to figure out that people *choose* to
believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S.and thus referring to them as
"Birthers" is appropriate, and that referring to someone with a historically
insulting racist term is not analogous to that, were you?
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
news:7m78k59u076bhov47...@news.easynews.com...
> It isn't meant for a laugh. It is an illustration that the OP had tried to
> legitimize derogatory comments.
Horsecrap. If I call you an idiot because you set fire to yourself trying
to start your bar-b-que with a quart of gasoline then that term is based on
your *actions* and is fair comment. But if I were to call you a pollack
idiot because (for purposes of illustration) you're of Polish ancestry and
thus can be expected to do stupid things then that would reveal I'm a bigot
who clings to insulting stereotypes. See the difference? Probably not, and
even if you do you wouldn't have the guts to say so, you're all about the
slogan.
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
> So one misinformed person in a crowd makes the whole movement misinformed?
> I'll have to remember that.
>
> I'm just trying to gather ground rules that work the same for both sides.
No, you're just playing your usual game, namely sidestepping what people
actually post and substituting your own childish construct that you can rail
against instead. Same as it ever was....
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/12/the-grinches-that-stole-america/
>
> You *have* to be kidding.
>
> And MoveOn.org doesn't have pages and pages of ridiculous "information"
> and banter?
>
> Oops, I forgot the rule... lefties are infallible.
Classic Spender--But mom, Timmy did it first!
Lord Valve
> But if I were to call you a pollack
> idiot because (for purposes of illustration) you're of Polish ancestry
If you call him a "pollack," he'd better be related to a cod.
You fucktard.
Lord Valve
Scotch Polack (small side order of Chink)
Bruce Morgen
Even Glenn Beck has started
distancing himself from the
birthers -- they really are
the fringe of the fringe if
even Beck has commenced
disowning them, and even
accusing them of being
unwitting pawns of the
adminstration whose antics
distract from legitimate
righty issues. For once,
Beck has a point -- is
there anyone less credible
than Orly Taitz, DDS, she
of the multiple forged
Obama birth certificates?
Bruce Morgen
Freedom of speech also
includes the right to
call the protesters
ignorant, whining
arseholes when that is
indeed the case.
Mike Pritchard
Lord Valve wrote:
> Arlowe wrote:
>
> > DGDevin had a winge & posted this link :
> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6057569.shtml?tag=stack
> >
> > This "you lost, get over it" shit is really wearing thin.
> > These people are opposed to leftist ideology, they have a right to
> > protest.
>
> We're not interested in getting over it. We're working on getting *rid* of it.
>
> Watch us do it. ;-)
>
> LV
OK, so now it's my turn to tell you to GO FUCK YOURSELF, asshole. For 8 long years, you told us to
"get over it", so now you get the same from us. Period.
You can dish it out, so now you get to take it, too.
You lost---get the fuck over it!!
You'll get your turn to vote again, soon enough....just like we did.
Dumbass.....
Mike
Tony Elka
Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> If you call him a "pollack," he'd better be related to a cod.
>
> You fucktard.
>
>
> Lord Valve
> Scotch Polack (small side order of Chink)
The emotional toddler inside the body of an adult swoops down with a
brave attack on a spelling error!
What a jerk-off.
Tony
Tony Elka
sam booka <Yo...@email.com> wrote:
> Not only have the Republicans "gotten over it," they are planning an
> assault so ferocious that 'RATs are already resigning in droves, refusing
> to run in 2010. Only a bunch of screwups like the Obama Mutual Admiration
> Society could fuel a backlash fierce enough to eclipse both the Nixon
> Landslides and the Reagan Revolution. This has to be some kind of fzckup
> record for a freshman government not even having one year under its belt,
> cowering from their own tar and feather cooking constituents. Should the
> title be, "They won, can't run" instead? :p
Actually, the Republicans don't have any viable candidates that sane
voters will support in significant numbers, and that's why they're
having real trouble doing the fund-raising necessary for this ferocious
assault you're predicting.
Tony
Tony Elka
<d72748f9-5bd5-4848...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
nm...@wt.net wrote:
> You will never convince me that "big government" is the answer
> to all our problems. As I see it, that *is* the problem.
Big government is darn useful when it comes to something like creating
an interstate highway system.
Without the rural electrification act of 1936, it would have taken the
USA forever waiting for the private sector to get the country wired-up.
Big government isn't the problem that big business currently is. I
don't want to live in a corporate fascist state.
Cut-off their ability to bribe politicians and this nation will be
transformed, almost overnight.
Tony
DGDevin
"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4B44D678...@ix.netcom.com...
>> But if I were to call you a pollack
>> idiot because (for purposes of illustration) you're of Polish ancestry
>
> If you call him a "pollack," he'd better be related to a cod.
>
> You fucktard.
You'll have to excuse my lack of familiarity with ethnic slurs, Willie, they
don't form the core of my lexicon as they do yours.
> Lord Valve
> Scotch Polack (small side order of Chink)
And a pompous blowhard no matter where your ancestors fled from steps ahead
of the bailiff.
Read every post in the thread, haven't you. ;~)
Now Playing: "Boo Hoo"--Harry James and the Boogie Woogie Trio
DGDevin
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:tnk9k5t6ko6so8rne...@4ax.com...
> Even Glenn Beck has started
> distancing himself from the
> birthers -- they really are
> the fringe of the fringe if
> even Beck has commenced
> disowning them, and even
> accusing them of being
> unwitting pawns of the
> adminstration whose antics
> distract from legitimate
> righty issues. For once,
> Beck has a point -- is
> there anyone less credible
> than Orly Taitz, DDS, she
> of the multiple forged
> Obama birth certificates?
I don't know why Beck would be uncomfortable being associated with someone
who believes Obama is a radical Muslim communist (who for some reason has
dozens of social security numbers) and has had people who question his right
to be President murdered (along with ordering her car vandalized) and has
FEMA building concentration camps for his political opponents--or who
believes that Hugo Chavez controls American voting machine via their
software, that judges who dismiss her numerous lawsuits are guilty of
treason, that the Saudis partially own Fox News and so on and so
forth--sounds right up Beck's alley. Beck and Taitz should be dating,
they're made for each other. Of course Beck would have to get past Willie
first, if Willie and Taitz weren't (tragically) already married to others
Willie would be sending her candy and flowers every day of the week. Of
course the boxes of candy would already be partially eaten, but still, it's
the thought that counts.
Bruce Morgen
Bullseye -- the cost of
publicly financed federal
election campaigns is
currently dwarfed by the
cost to the country of
bought and paid-for
federal legislators
constantly begging for
more corporate and
gazillionaire
contributions to stay in
office -- and, when they
retire, to get on the
big money gravy train
themselves as lobbyists
or "consultants."
Tony Elka
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> And now you'll tell us how "teabaggers" is somehow a suitable term for
> discussion. You also overlook the fact that the terms are being used
> against an entire movement, not just some individuals.
A movement that calls itself "teabagger"s is going to get called that,
what exactly is your point, sport?
Tony
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>You weren't *really* expecting Spender to figure out that people *choose*
>>to
>>believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S.and thus referring to them as
>>"Birthers" is appropriate, and that referring to someone with a
>>historically
>>insulting racist term is not analogous to that, were you?
>
> And now you'll tell us how "teabaggers" is somehow a suitable term for
> discussion.
Do a web search, Einstein, notice the photos of people at those rallies with
tea-bags hanging from their hats. If people with tea-bags hanging from
their bats being called Teabaggers really upsets you then complain to them,
not me--I didn't make them fasten tea-bags to their rebel-flag trucker hats.
Damn, this is funny. You complain that I call people with tea-bags dangling
from their hats Teabaggers because it's insulting to them despite them being
the ones stapling tea-bags to their hat brims, but did you ever make a peep
about the Chocolate Easter Bunny crap from your philosophical associate
Willie? No? Well then. No surprise, your famous double-standard is still
in operation (you know, the thing you constantly complain of other people
doing).
> You also overlook the fact that the terms are being used
> against an entire movement, not just some individuals.
That's expected given your earlier attempt to suggest that only a tiny
fraction of the people who turn out for these rallies hold extreme views. I
said something similar to people involved in some anti-Bush rallies and
marches in years past, when they chose to associate with Black Bloc
extremists they shouldn't have been surprised the public saw little
difference between one group and another since they were both present when
the rocks started to fly and the windows got smashed.
If you can show me a more moderate element in this Tea Party movement
consistently speaking out against the racism and paranoia and general
ignorance some of their fellow protestors so enthusiastically display, cool,
I'll reconsider. Can you do that? Has any speaker at a Tea Party rally
ever condemned someone for holding up a placard identifying the President of
the United States as a communist baby-murdering traitor? Yeah, I know, this
is where you whine about left-winger holding signs depicting Bush as Hitler
for eight years, that apparently being the standard excuse right-wingnuts
now have to fall back on. Like I said, you've switched places with the
left-wingnuts without missing a beat, it's really something to see.
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>Horsecrap. If I call you an idiot because you set fire to yourself trying
>>to start your bar-b-que with a quart of gasoline then that term is based
>>on
>>your *actions* and is fair comment. But if I were to call you a pollack
>>idiot because (for purposes of illustration) you're of Polish ancestry and
>>thus can be expected to do stupid things then that would reveal I'm a
>>bigot
>>who clings to insulting stereotypes. See the difference? Probably not,
>>and
>>even if you do you wouldn't have the guts to say so, you're all about the
>>slogan.
>
> This from the man who just in the last post tried to legitimize his use of
> derogatory terms to blanket an entire political movement.
Can you really be this stupid? Are you truly unable to see the difference
between a slur based on the color of skin a person is born with and an
insult based on the *behavior* which people *choose* to exhibit?
Why am I asking this, of course you're this stupid and/or dishonest, you're
proven that time and again.
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>No, you're just playing your usual game, namely sidestepping what people
>>actually post and substituting your own childish construct that you can
>>rail
>>against instead. Same as it ever was....
>
> Coming from the king of strawman arguments, I'll have to take that as a
> compliment.
I gotta figure out a way to get paid for this, if I could collect a dollar
for every time Spender gets busted attacking his own straw-man and then
immediately claiming *I'm* the one who does that it could be highly
profitable. Is there a chance he'll ever figure out how foolish he looks
using the same excuse every time he gets caught doing what he claims I do?
Naw, even if he's smart enough his character would prevent him from not
slinging the same old bullshit.
Arlowe
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:24:51 -0800, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Classic Spender--But mom, Timmy did it first!
>
We both know you are arguing with either:
a. A thick head that can not admit that it is wrong...ever.
b. A complete idiot
c. both a.& b.
Why?