Woohoo! Go, Scott Brown. [Archive]

Subotan

01-20-2010, 14:33

It's not just that, but rather the fact that Dems were running the show as if they got a blank check from the public,
They did. They ran on a manifesto (Platform?) of health care reform, they won the election, and control of Congress. Looks like a blank check to me.

and ultra-partisan manner of Congress as a whole in handling the healthcare bill is part of the problem.
Fix'd. You know just as much as I do that the Republicans weren't the ones reaching across the aisle. Whether the Dems did is debatable, but the Republicans were not victims.

First, the sheer irony of the health care bill being defeated as a result of Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is high entertainment value in and of itself.

Truth. As a Brit, I'm finding this amazingly funny. The sheer incompetence of everyone involved in Congress in the past year has provided much entertainment to the rest of the planet.

Second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a party that is incapable of passing legislation with 59 Senate seats and a large majority in the House.
There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.

Thank God for the House of Commons and our "elected dictatorship".

rvg

01-20-2010, 14:54

They did. They ran on a manifesto (Platform?) of health care reform, they won the election, and control of Congress. Looks like a blank check to me.

It's not, and this election result shows it quite well.

There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

Vladimir

01-20-2010, 15:08

There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.

Thank God for the House of Commons and our "elected dictatorship".

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us. :yes:

TinCow

01-20-2010, 15:23

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

At the same time, the current use of the filibuster is not remotely historical. Google-fu tells me that there were no filibusters at all between 1789 and 1840, and fewer than 2 dozen total between 1841 and 1899. Between 1919 and 1963, there were a total of only 23 filibusters. From 2000 through 2008, there have never been fewer than 43 filibusters per year, with 139 filibusters in 2008 alone.

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

rvg

01-20-2010, 15:35

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us. :yes:

Occasionally it even gets downgraded to a tyranny of the plurality.

Ironside

01-20-2010, 15:42

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

If that healthcare bill fails to pass, you can celebrate with having your currently working system that costs twice as much as anybody elses and got the least coverage and bang for the bucks, for another decade or two.

Or putting it this way, cutting down your healthcare costs with 33% is a mediocre reform, cutting it down with 20% is a bad reform. That's with no quality loss or even quality increase on average.

Scienter

01-20-2010, 15:43

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

But, it will keep working this way until we elect congresspeople who can do something other than only vote along party lines.

Subotan

01-20-2010, 15:43

It's not, and this election result shows it quite well..
Why?

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us. :yes:
Oh, no, if the government tries to do something silly, we get our unelected Lords to smack them down :yes:

At the same time, the current use of the filibuster is not remotely historical. Google-fu tells me that there were no filibusters at all between 1789 and 1840, and fewer than 2 dozen total between 1841 and 1899. Between 1919 and 1963, there were a total of only 23 filibusters. From 2000 through 2008, there have never been fewer than 43 filibusters per year, with 139 filibusters in 2008 alone.

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

Partisanship has become extreme. It's interesting to see that the Republicans in Congress, who claim that government is inefficient, are making government unworkable in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

KukriKhan

01-20-2010, 15:48

But, it will keep working this way until we elect congresspeople who can do something other than only vote along party lines.

On the other hand, we should remember that filibusters, cloture, majorities, super-majorities, and all these other (annoying to us) nuances of law-making, are not constitutionally-mandated, and could be changed in a day - rather, they're products of rules made and agreed to at the start of congressional sessions.

Vuk

01-20-2010, 16:26

The people have spoken! ~;) Now just wait till 2012 when we get Palin in. :beam:
It is funny, because I have seen countless polls saying that a great majority of Americans do not want the health care legislation that the house and senate is offering, but they still employ all their dirty, underhanded tricks to pass it against the express disapproval of the people who they are supposed to be representing. They are representatives, and they are supposed to act like it.

rvg

01-20-2010, 16:36

If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-20-2010, 16:37

And why wouldn't he be under that mistaken impression, is it not the core of modern liberal-left politics that the word "progressive" means the unrelenting attempt to hammer out the rough edges of human nature via legislation and compulsion in order to achieve a more harmonious society.......... regardless of the fact that what it really amounts to is the attempt to pervert that natural inclinations of individual human nature (both the good and the bad) under the foolish assumption that there is a 'correct' way to order society? :2thumbsup:

What's the core of conservative politics? I guess it doesn't involve any ideas about what the correct way to order society is...

Subotan

01-20-2010, 16:41

The people have spoken! .

No, the Republican Party has spoken.

Now just wait till 2012 when we get Palin in. :beam:

Thank God Armageddon will happen before she's inaugurated.

It is funny, because I have seen countless polls saying that a great majority of Americans do not want the health care legislation that the house and senate is offering,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx
Americans' support for U.S. healthcare legislation has crept up incrementally since early November. Now, slightly more Americans want their member of Congress to vote in favor of such legislation rather than against it, 49% vs. 46% -- a first since October.
I would love to see the maths you did to get -3% to constitute a "great majority".

They are representatives, and they are supposed to act like it.
Representatives != Delegates. Edumund Burke established that before the United States even existed.

EDIT:

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.
It took years to establish the NHS in the UK. Attempting to do something similar in the USA over one year is nigh-impossible.

rvg

01-20-2010, 16:43

No, the Republican Party has spoken.

Damn those mighty 12% of the Massachusetts electorate!

Lemur

01-20-2010, 16:45

I would hesitate to declare that a single-state election is a proxy referendum for the nation. I mean, hey, you're free to declare that it's a referendum on the entire galaxy if you like, but I think it's a bit much.

Fivethirtyeight does some number crunching (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/lets-play-blame-game.html) on the spectacular 31-point swing from a 26-point Obama win in 2008 to Coakley's 5-point loss yesterday.

At a bare minimum, 10 of those points must be assigned to the national environment. Generic ballot polling suggests that the Democrats' position has worsened by a net of 10 points since November 2008, from winning the House popular vote by 10 points in 2008 to being dead even with Republicans today.

Also at a bare minimum, 11 points of blame should be assigned to Coakley. That represents the difference between the 58 percent of vote that she received at her high-water mark in the polls to the 47 percent she received on Election Day. A fairly large number of voters, it appears, actually turned away from Coakley; it was not just a matter of undecided ones turning toward Brown.

That leaves us with 10 more points of blame to assign; let's just dole those out as evenly as possible, giving 3 more points to Coakley, 3 more points to the national environment, and 4 to Massachusetts-specific special contingencies -- it gets the extra point because it hadn't received any yet.

That would make the final score: national environment 13, Coakley 14, special circumstances 4.

If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley. And it suggests that the race would have been a 1-point loss (that is, basically too close to call), rather than a 5-point loss, even if Coakley had run such a bad campaign and even if the national environment had deteriorated as much as it has, but had there not been the unusual circumstances associated with this particular election.

Obviously, this is a rather imprecise and unsophisticated exercise. But each of those implications feels about right to me. Maybe you'd do the math a little differently. But don't be sparing with your blame; there's plenty of it to go around.

Vladimir

01-20-2010, 16:45

Damn those mighty 12% of the Massachusetts electorate!

Tyranny of the minority. :yes:

Lemur

01-20-2010, 17:10

Best headline of the day: Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/01/scott_brown_win.php)

Beskar

01-20-2010, 18:03

My statement might have been "uncool", however, it was unfortunately very true. Maybe some plant extracts would solve a lot of the problems.

Subotan

01-20-2010, 18:29

Best headline of the day: Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/01/scott_brown_win.php)

Browsing through the comments:

I don't know where you attended college, but I'm questioning your math skills. In what world is 41 considered a majority over 59?

Is this irony deficiency a nation wide phenomenon?

rvg

01-20-2010, 18:42

You can find people with no sense of humor in every nation.

Lemur

01-20-2010, 18:54

Is this irony deficiency a nation wide phenomenon?
You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem. There are just some thick people out there.

Strike For The South

01-20-2010, 19:16

I don't see this so much as a referendum on Obamas health care as much as I see it as Coakleys bumbiling campiagn coming to bite her in the backside.

She did all the wrong things and handed this thing to Brown.

Aemilius Paulus

01-20-2010, 19:28

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.
As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop. Without a doubt this is a common human tendency, but it is all too well-observed in Republican/conservative apologists. Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...

Simply because the parts are wrong/missing, it does not mean it should be trashed - something most evident in science, particularly the theory of evolution. On the contrary, everything seems like rubbish in the beginning, but usually it improves. US has a great deal of experience in this, and its entire Constitution was founded upon this belief, hence the amendments (I simply at loss of words why so many Republicans deny or oppose the 'living Constitution' principle on historical grounds too).

So what is it that the Republicans want? Are they truly that idealistic? No. And neither are the Dems - it is all (or mostly) partisanship. But can the conservative Orgahs not see through this? Now, if you do not beleive the nation even needs the healthcare bill, then that is another matter, and I leave those who believe in this hypothesis alone, as their argument is rather well-formulated, even if I disagree with it.

So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.

rvg

01-20-2010, 19:31

So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.

Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.

Aemilius Paulus

01-20-2010, 19:34

Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.
Sorry, let me rephrase that:

All who oppose the healthcare bill - which category do you fall in?

You are libertarian, right rvg?

rvg

01-20-2010, 19:42

You are libertarian, right rvg?

I'm a centrist, actually. Which means that I usually end up voting Democratic when the republicans are in power and vice versa when the Democrats are in power. I am also convinced that no party should be allowed to control both the Congress and the presidency at once.

Having said that, my opposition to the healthcare bill is mostly due to the fact that it is poorly written and loaded with pork. Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care, but if there has to be a federal bill, it should be efficient, concise and clear. The bill in its current reading is nothing short of a nightmare.

Subotan

01-20-2010, 20:05

You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem. There are just some thick people out there.
Well, there's humor, and then there's humour.

I don't see this so much as a referendum on Obamas health care as much as I see it as Coakleys bumbiling campiagn coming to bite her in the backside.

She did all the wrong things and handed this thing to Brown.
It's certainly difficult to see this as some kind of nationwide rejection of "Obama-care". Didn't she take Christmas off? :dizzy2:

As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop.
I always get a fuzzy feeling inside when people on an internet forum say I'm right :smug:

Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...
This is slightly OT, but an interesting aspect of that phenomenon is that regardless of how much evidence is provided for those issues (Or any issues even), for many Republicans it never reaches their consistently increasingly high standard of "proof" (For Republicans, I just want to clarify that I mean the loudest ones, e.g. Glenn Beck, Limbaugh et al)

Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care
I doubt that's feasible. There would be many discrepancies between states, and increase the strain on State's finances, without increasing the accountability of state legislatures.

rvg

01-20-2010, 20:15

There would be many discrepancies between states, and increase the strain on State's finances, without increasing the accountability of state legislatures.

As opposed to straining the Federal finances without increasing the accountability of federal legislatures? Look, if the people in any given state want universal healthcare, let them have it. The statewide healthcare bill can be tailored towards the specific needs and intricacies of the state, and if it falls flat, at least that mistake has not been implemented elsewhere. There's NOTHING preventing any given state from following the example of Massachusetts, and if the Massachusetts universal healtchcare plan is good, then other states will eventually adopt something similar. There's no reason whatsoever so shuv this plan down the proverbial throat of the entire nation at once.

Aemilius Paulus

01-20-2010, 20:34

As opposed to straining the Federal finances without increasing the accountability of federal legislatures? Look, if the people in any given state want universal healthcare, let them have it. The statewide healthcare bill can be tailored towards the specific needs and intricacies of the state, and if it falls flat, at least that mistake has not been implemented elsewhere. There's NOTHING preventing any given state from following the example of Massachusetts, and if the Massachusetts universal healtchcare plan is good, then other states will eventually adopt something similar. There's no reason whatsoever so shuv this plan down the proverbial throat of the entire nation at once.
Please, states have a bad record on initiative for major reforms/groundbreaking laws. namely the ones which entail very high costs, as opposed to issues such as banning/permitting gay marriage, abortion, etc... And states lack the accountability of the Federal Gov't (I know, rvg, you are likely trying hard not to fall off your chair in laughter right now).

Not to mention, such a degree of autonomy bothers me, but of course, my outlooks on the issue of state's rights are far out of tune with the general American public, so this is hardly surprising. Still, that makes me queasy. And the US Gov't cannot default on their loans, or carpet people with IOUs as California is doing. Not feasibly, at least. Sure, there is foreign and private domestic debt, but how much do people keep track of what goes on in their state legislature vs. the Congress?

Gregoshi

01-20-2010, 20:42

You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem...
Don't forget Ferrous Bueller's Day Off. :inquisitive:

Husar

01-20-2010, 20:56

And why wouldn't he be under that mistaken impression, is it not the core of modern liberal-left politics that the word "progressive" means the unrelenting attempt to hammer out the rough edges of human nature via legislation and compulsion in order to achieve a more harmonious society.......... regardless of the fact that what it really amounts to is the attempt to pervert that natural inclinations of individual human nature (both the good and the bad) under the foolish assumption that there is a 'correct' way to order society? :2thumbsup:

But aren't the right-wing USAians basically trying to do the same thing with bans on gay marriage, jailing young couples because one of the two is a few months older etc.?

Louis VI the Fat

01-20-2010, 21:07

I am a man of spiteful, resentful character.

Here then, is a picture of the young Scot Brown. Please somebody tell me he, uhm, has a tendency to toe-tap around 'issues':

https://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4415/scottbrownpicturey.jpg

rvg

01-20-2010, 21:11

Looks like Obama has gotten the message and responded appropriately. Bravo, Barry-o, a very classy and presidential response that is worthy of respect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8470187.stm

Lemur

01-20-2010, 21:14

Here then, is a picture of the young Scot Brown.
I don't know about toe-tapping, but this picture definitely reminds me of something (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88288) ...

Seamus Fermanagh

01-20-2010, 21:30

Obama is an experience Chicago-school politician. He knows how to play the game fairly well and (though the right-wing radio frothers will not admit it) with a modicum of class as well.

I loathe his POLICIES, but he is neither stupid nor impolite.

For AP:

US conservatives come in many stripes.

The fiscal responsibility subset hates the latest health care effort because it will NOT reduce costs. No government essay into insurance/health care here in the USA has ever done so. Moreover, the quality improvement generated by government involvement is rarely, if ever, of the same magnitude as the increased costs. They grumbled over the wall street and bank bailouts, but tolerated them in the name of financial stability. They hated the auto bailout thinking the monies will be wasted on companies doomed to fail anyway.

The anti-big government subset hates the latest health care effort because it puts more and more federal government control in place over healthcare. They view this as unwarranted government interference in private life. They also hated the Bush bailouts of Wall Street and the Banks AND the Obama bailout of the car industry.

The state's rights subset hates the latest health care effort because it doesn't adhere to the implicit limitations set forth the the Constitution and re-iterated in the 10th ammendment thereto. They view this as yet another effort/means by which to neuter the several states in favor of a one-government for all system. They hated the bank bailouts and auto bailouts as well.

The right to life subset hates the latest health care effort because it will end up using government money to fund abortions -- regardless of the codicil that seeks to prevent same. This subset rarely cares about any other issue, view abortion as both a crime and an inherent evil. Obama doesn't expect a lot of votes from this crowd anyway, so they have limited influence.

The libertarian subset hates the latest health care effort because it will end up increasing the federal government's role, increase taxation, and take away from their individual choice. This reflects a good bit of the "rugged individualism" mindset.

These subsets are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Moreover, all of them are aided and abetted in the case of the Brown race by the GOP subset. That subset views the enhancement of GOP power as the ultimate goal in and of its own.

Vladimir

01-20-2010, 21:31

Don't forget Ferrous Bueller's Day Off. :inquisitive:

:2thumbsup:

CountArach

01-21-2010, 00:43

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx
Americans' support for U.S. healthcare legislation has crept up incrementally since early November. Now, slightly more Americans want their member of Congress to vote in favor of such legislation rather than against it, 49% vs. 46% -- a first since October.
I would love to see the maths you did to get -3% to constitute a "great majority".
Interestingly, Healthcare reform is popular if you don't mention the present Bill. The current legislation commits the problem of assuming that the answer to Healthcare reform lies between the two extremes - single payer and free market. This means that, in turn, neither side of politics is pleased and thus the present Bill becomes unpopular. This is particularly true of Progressives, who are causing the poll numbers of this Bill to be deflated compared to overall healthcare reform (Which is what the poll you quoted shows).

Major Robert Dump

01-21-2010, 05:25

While watching FOX News the past two days I have been reminded why I loathe political journalism. They have used the word "revolution" probably a hundred times while referring to Brown. They have already elected him president. Jim Kramer flat out said the 100+ bump the stock market got yesterday was due to the polls showing Brown ahead, yet tonight altogether failed to mention whether or not Brown had anything to do with the 190 point loss today which is, I believe, the biggest one this quarter. I mean, the guy said it was "fact" that people like Brown cause a stock rally. OMG WTF GTFO TV NOW SWITCHED TO OFF POSITION

Devastatin Dave

01-21-2010, 05:26

I'm pretty liberal and have been a party-line Democrat for many years now. However, I can't even find myself mourning this result too much. First, the sheer irony of the health care bill being defeated as a result of Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is high entertainment value in and of itself. Second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a party that is incapable of passing legislation with 59 Senate seats and a large majority in the House.

Just as the Founding Fathers designed our government. Liberty comes from the inability for governments to intrude in your life. The fact that it takes extreme compromise, debate, and all out fighting keeps the government at bay while the citizenry can have freedom. Europeans use to understand that, those Europeans became Americans!!! :laugh4:

Beskar

01-21-2010, 07:16

Victory, for the Ferengi!

https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4861/ferengi1.jpg

https://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7999/picardfacepalmeg.jpg

Crazed Rabbit

01-21-2010, 07:27

Good grief, at least tribesy put effort into his trolling.

These lefty mini-mes and their attempts at snarkiness are just sad.

CR

Beskar

01-21-2010, 08:06

Yet you share many beliefs with the Ferengi. So it is pretty accurate. :wink:

Subotan

01-21-2010, 10:05

Interestingly, Healthcare reform is popular if you don't mention the present Bill. The current legislation commits the problem of assuming that the answer to Healthcare reform lies between the two extremes - single payer and free market. This means that, in turn, neither side of politics is pleased and thus the present Bill becomes unpopular
That is interesting. I wonder how many Americans would support a full blown NHS then. Ofc, it might be ebcause the poll numbers are vague, as "Do you support defeating terrorists?" is always going to get more support than "Do you support the war in Afghanistan?"

OMG WTF GTFO TV NOW SWITCHED TO OFF POSITION

It's also interesting to note how FOX News has kidnapped the words "freedom", "liberty" and "American", and uses them as if FOX News is the dictionary definition of all of these things.

EDIT: Also, this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2010/jan/21/scott-brown-senate-win) Maybe ever slightly NSFW.

al Roumi

01-21-2010, 12:38

'I'm Scott Brown. I drive a truck' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2010/jan/21/scott-brown-senate-win)

Steve Bell is very funny.

Subotan

01-21-2010, 13:17

Steve Bell is very funny.
Yep, I know

EDIT: Also, this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2010/jan/21/scott-brown-senate-win) Maybe ever slightly NSFW.

:laugh4:

al Roumi

01-21-2010, 13:23

Yep, I know

:laugh4:

:embarassed: well you know, great minds think alike etc etc

Subotan

01-21-2010, 18:32

Still, it; nice to know there's another Guardian reader on the .Org, We sandal wearers have got to stick together.

Lemur

01-21-2010, 18:37

This seems like an intelligent, coherent analysis (http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/01/41.html). As such I expect it to be ignored.

Obviously, Republicans should oppose Obama and the Democrats on substance, sharply if there are (real) sharp disagreements, which is the case on many policies. But the rejectionist strategy they're following (oppose Dems at every turn, regardless of policy difference) is, I continue to believe, a real mistake.

What's the cost to Republicans? First, on policy, they lose the ability to negotiate on behalf of their important constituency groups; as we've seen, this can have the effect of actually driving some of these groups (the doctors, for example) right out of the party. Second, embracing the crazy yields, well, the crazy in charge of your party. Republicans stand to gain in the 2010 cycle because the economy is lousy, because Democrats have a lot of exposure after two terrific cycles, and because the party of the president almost always does badly in midterms. If, however, Republicans nominate candidates who have embraced the crazy, they will be far more vulnerable to counterattacks than if they nominate good, solid candidates (and not every Democratic candidate will emulate Martha Coakley and not get around to attacking crazy things that their opponents say until the last 48 hours).

However, no one is going to listen to advice like that. Republicans are invested in a particular interpretation of 1994, and yesterday's election is only going to reinforce that interpretation, whether it's correct or not.

Subotan

01-21-2010, 20:17

That's really good. I wondered why the both shrill shrieks of total Democrat annihilation and the gloating cries of Republican conquest had left me unfazed. That blog explains why.

Louis VI the Fat

01-21-2010, 22:02

Obviously, Republicans should oppose Obama and the Democrats on substance, sharply if there are (real) sharp disagreements, which is the case on many policies. But the rejectionist strategy they're following (oppose Dems at every turn, regardless of policy difference) is, I continue to believe, a real mistake.

However, no one is going to listen to advice like that. Republicans are invested in a particular interpretation of 1994, and yesterday's election is only going to reinforce that interpretation, whether it's correct or not.That is the reason of my resentfulness. I can't get over the fact that the Republicans should've been rewarded for their obstruction and sabotage. They have taken it to a level that is unheard of in the democratic world, where political mitigation is considered a virtue, the oil that keeps the political machinery functioning.

Obama's administration, agree with him or not, is by any reasonable standards a moderate, centre-right administration. Not a foreign Marxist occupational force that needs to be resisted at all cost.

I should hope there is a price to be paid for the GOP itself, and not just for the functioning of democracy in America.

Lemur

01-21-2010, 22:06

I should hope there is a price to be paid for the GOP itself, and not just for the functioning of democracy in America.
No evidence of price-paying thus far, or as one blogger (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/our-broken-institutions.php) put it:

The problem here is that the Republican strategy of holding out for total surrender is working just fine. They had an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.

aimlesswanderer

01-22-2010, 01:55

Yeah, the Republicans seem to be opposing everything just because they can, and because the thoughtful types on Fox are causing their supporters to froth at the mouth. And where were all these disaffected small government types when Bush was racking up a massive deficit (hello multiple trillion dollar tax cuts to the rich) and expanding the government hugely? They were probably congratulating themselves on their tax cuts, and not noticing that it blew an enormous hole in the budget. So now they're suddenly all hot and bothered?

Xiahou

01-22-2010, 03:14

No evidence of price-paying thus far, or as one blogger (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/our-broken-institutions.php) put it:

The problem here is that the Republican strategy of holding out for total surrender is working just fine. They had an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.It's comical to hear all the 'blame the GOP obstructionists' talk when until too recently the Democrats had unstoppable majorities in both houses. The Democrats had total control over Congress and the White House and still failed to accomplish anything. Why? Because of the Republicans. :dizzy2:

Under Bush, the GOP never had a 60 seat majority in the senate and the Democrats still howled about one party rule and how they were powerless to oppose the GOP majority. How is it that the Democrats had 60 seats and still managed to be so feckless? I guess Bush was just more bipartisan than Obama...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 03:35

And where were all these disaffected small government types when Bush was racking up a massive deficit (hello multiple trillion dollar tax cuts to the rich) and expanding the government hugely?

Not only was there similar opposition, but the opposition climbed the more Bush slid into deficit and debt. Is it any surprise that, now that Obama added so much extra debt and created an even larger deficit, that they are so much angrier?

drone

01-22-2010, 03:47

Under Bush, the GOP never had a 60 seat majority in the senate and the Democrats still howled about one party rule and how they were powerless to oppose the GOP majority. How is it that the Democrats had 60 seats and still managed to be so feckless? I guess Bush was just more bipartisan than Obama...

:yes: I've been pondering if the Democratic congressional leadership was (and remains) incompetent, or complicit in allowing the abuses of the Bush years. I'm not sure Occam's razor applies.

Major Robert Dump

01-22-2010, 04:49

BeeGees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XWYefe9EzI

aimlesswanderer

01-22-2010, 15:20

Not only was there similar opposition, but the opposition climbed the more Bush slid into deficit and debt. Is it any surprise that, now that Obama added so much extra debt and created an even larger deficit, that they are so much angrier?

But the budget was crap and getting worse the longer bush was in charge, and so when Obama took office it was already in terrible shape. If there was no stimulus the US economy would have been even crappier, and if there were no bailouts there would be no economy, no financial system and probably a global depression. It isn't Obama's fault that the budget he inherited was in huge deficit, that was his predecessors who caused that.

KukriKhan

01-22-2010, 15:30

BeeGees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XWYefe9EzI

I'll see your Aussie Massachusetts, and Raise you a Dirty Water; Boston You're My Home (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a65H8PR17fY&feature=related). :) (Funny those guys are still doing gigs, 40 years later.

-edit-
to topic: GOP'ers need to be careful they don't convince themselves of a "message from the people" that isn't there.

Subotan

01-22-2010, 16:22

Not only was there similar opposition, but the opposition climbed the more Bush slid into deficit and debt.

http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2009/09/19/Editorial_20090917/editorial20090917.jpg

Skullheadhq

01-22-2010, 16:43

http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2009/09/19/Editorial_20090917/editorial20090917.jpg

Nice one!
Also, would you let illegals just rot to death and deny them healthcare, it looks inhumane in my eyes.

Aemilius Paulus

01-22-2010, 17:10

Nice one!
Also, would you let illegals just rot to death and deny them healthcare, it looks inhumane in my eyes.
Actually, even as a leftie, I would not agree with your point. The last thing US needs is providing for illegals. The fact they do not pay taxes is bad enough, and the illegals are almost never turned down in the ER (Emergency Room) because that is illegal. And the anchor babies, a concept which is widely and blatantly abused by illegals...

So now you tell me they should get healthcare as well? What happened to the fact they are breaking the law by staying in US, and that they can go back anytime they want to Mexico (or whichever Central American/Caribbean state they belong to). I mean, your idea is noble and splendid, sure, but it is not sustainable. A healthcare system for US citizens only would necessitate a sharp tax increase, but providing for illegals as well would push taxes up and possibly over the levels of European welfare states - something most Americans loathe, or at least would rather not have.

Not to mention, legal immigrants like me do not/will not receive free healthcare - why should illegals, of all the people, receive it? Despite the fact that I would love to receive free healthcare myself, I do not think US should provide for legal immigrants either. If US does it though, then it could face reverse medical tourism...

Sasaki Kojiro

01-22-2010, 17:19

It's comical to hear all the 'blame the GOP obstructionists' talk when until too recently the Democrats had unstoppable majorities in both houses. The Democrats had total control over Congress and the White House and still failed to accomplish anything. Why? Because of the Republicans. :dizzy2:

Under Bush, the GOP never had a 60 seat majority in the senate and the Democrats still howled about one party rule and how they were powerless to oppose the GOP majority. How is it that the Democrats had 60 seats and still managed to be so feckless? I guess Bush was just more bipartisan than Obama...

If the democrats haven't done anything, I guess that conservatives who want to keep the status quo should be cheering them on.

Skullheadhq

01-22-2010, 17:28

Not to mention, legal immigrants like me do not/will not receive free healthcare.

Even if they pay taxes, just like all other americans?

Aemilius Paulus

01-22-2010, 17:49

Even if they pay taxes, just like all other americans?
Well, for example, my family pays all the taxes any equivalent American would pay, owns significant property in US, but suppose if our incomes dropped to the level where an American would receive Medicaid, we would not (even if we continued paying the taxes, which an American of that level of poverty barely does - or does not pay at all, considering the tax returns). Also, I am not eligible for any public-university scholarships/public scholarship grants.

So, if the new healthcare plan is unveiled, it is unlikely that my family will be covered. American citizenship is supposed to grant privileges unavailable to others, and it does. Otherwise, how do you distinguish an American from an immigrant? Residing and working in US is a privilege, not a right. The privilege entails certain costs, certain restrictions. And I am lucky enough already.

Skullheadhq

01-22-2010, 18:23

I heard from a friend ( I dont think it's true, because it's so weird) that you get a scholarship in America just because you're good in a sport, can anybody confirm this?

rvg

01-22-2010, 18:25

I heard from a friend ( I dont think it's true, because it's so weird) that you get a scholarship in America just because you're good in a sport, can anybody confirm this?

Sure can. But you gotta be good.

Skullheadhq

01-22-2010, 18:27

REALLY?! That's just unbelievable, and poor ol' taxpaying AP can not and a retarded sporter can get it.
Mind=blown

Vladimir

01-22-2010, 19:26

REALLY?! That's just unbelievable, and poor ol' taxpaying AP can not and a retarded sporter can get it.
Mind=blown

Not at all. If you are that good at a sport you'll bring in far more money than tuition and fees. It's all about the money. Think about it: How much money is involved in college sports? Whether that is right or wrong is another subject.

Crazed Rabbit

01-22-2010, 19:30

It's the colleges who pay for an athlete's scholarship - and the athletes have to be good. The cost is made up by people paying to see the college football team play.

Of course, you could easily make an argument that such massive spending by colleges on sports is wasteful and shouldn't be the goal of educational institutes.

And there's lots of scholarships for smart people as well.

Also, would you let illegals just rot to death and deny them healthcare, it looks inhumane in my eyes.

No, it's denying criminals free health insurance paid for by American taxpayers.

From Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017503811443526.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond):

Speaking broadly: In the 2006 and 2008 elections, and at some point during the past decade, the ancestral war between Democrats and the Republicans began to take on a new look. If you were a normal human sitting at home having a beer and watching national politics peripherally, as normal people do until they focus on an election, chances are pretty good you came to see the two major parties not as the Dems versus the Reps, or the blue versus the bed, but as the Nuts versus the Creeps. The Nuts were for high spending and taxing and the expansion of government no matter what. The Creeps were hypocrites who talked one thing and did another, who went along on the spending spree while lecturing on fiscal solvency.

In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, "Uh-oh, he's a Nut!"

Which meant they were left with the Creeps.

But the Republican candidates in Virginia and New Jersey, and now Scott Brown in Massachusetts, did something amazing. They played the part of the Creep very badly! They put themselves forward as serious about spending, as independent, not narrowly partisan. Mr. Brown rarely mentioned he was a Republican, and didn't even mention the party in his victory speech. Importantly, their concerns were on the same page as the voters'. They focused on the relationship between spending and taxing, worried about debt and deficits, were moderate in their approach to social issues. They didn't have wedge issues, they had issues.
...
For Mr. Brown now, everything depends on execution. He made the Olympics. Now he has to do the swan dive, with a billion people watching. And then he has to do it again.

He needs to serve the country the way he campaigned for votes—earnest, open, not beholden to interest or party. And he needs to avoid the Descent of the Congressional Vampires, who'll attempt to claim his victory as their own and suck from his neck until he's a pale and lifeless husk. Not to understate. But they'll want him fund-raising and speaking all over the country, not knowing or perhaps caring that the best work he can do for his party is succeeding in the eyes of his constituents, who couldn't care less about the fortunes of the GOP. He needs to avoid the vampires in the nicest possible way. Maybe he should carry a little cross deep inside his breast pocket so they retreat without knowing why: "I tried to get him to Boca for the donor retreat but some invisible force stopped me! I ran backwards and slipped on the shiny marble floor! Mah hip is out! "

CR

Beskar

01-22-2010, 19:39

Not at all. If you are that good at a sport you'll bring in far more money than tuition and fees. It's all about the money. Think about it: How much money is involved in college sports? Whether that is right or wrong is another subject.

Zero money in University sports here.

rvg

01-22-2010, 19:53

Zero money in University sports here.

God Bless America.

Louis VI the Fat

01-22-2010, 20:06

God bless America's knack for attracting talent of whatever kind. [/jealous, can't even get a few hardworking Polish plumbers to be allowed entry over here, never mind real talent. :shame:]

More importantly, the GOP ought to be brought before justice for treason and sedition. :whip:

The amusement and glee (http://rawstory.com/2009/10/kristol-olympic-bid/) many prominent conservatives displayed at the US's loss of the 2016 Olympics to Brazil may have seemed like a harmless bit of partisan bickering, but underlying that attitude is a dangerous attempt to subvert US foreign policy at a critical time.

It is a generally accepted -- though sometimes broken -- rule of politics that competing parties criticize each other at home, not abroad. But that rule now appears to be ignored more often than it is observed, as Republican politicians take to the world's stages to criticize President Barack Obama's policies on everything from climate change to the coup in Honduras to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

An interesting pattern has been emerging in the Republican Party's handling of foreign policy: Individual GOP officials are now making a regular point of not only formulating an alternative foreign policy, to be presented to the American people and debated in Congress -- they're acting on it too, and undermining the official White House policies at multiple turns:

• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is visiting Honduras in order to support the recent military coup against a leftist president, which has been opposed by the Obama administration and all the surrounding countries in the region. (Late Update: DeMint's office says he is not taking sides during his visit (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/demint-spokesman-hes-not-trying-to-intervene-in-honduras.php) to the current Honduran leadership, denying the New York Times reports that this was his

intention.)

• Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) will be going to the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, bringing a "Truth Squad" (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/inhofe-leading-truth-squad-to-climate-change-conference-will-say-that-us-senate-wont-pass-a-bill.php) to tell foreign officials there that the American government will not take any action: "Now, I want to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate."

• House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) traveled to Israel (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/08/republicans_troubled_by_us_policy_on_israel.php?ref=fpc), where he spoke out against President Obama's opposition to expanded settlements. He also defended Israel on the eviction of two Arab families from a house in east Jerusalem, which had been criticized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) boasted in June that he told Chinese officials (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/rep-mark-kirk-r-il-i-told-china-not-to-believe-us-budget-numbers.php) not to trust America's budget numbers. "One of the messages I had -- because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor," said Kirk, "is that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed." Since then, he has declared his candidacy for U.S. Senate.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/the-gops-new-foreign-policy-undermine-american-diplomacy.php
Unheard of in the functioning democratic world. Opposition does not mean resistance.

Last year I thought it was a commonly shared sentiment that partisan extremism undermines the functioning of US politics, and that the voters had had enough of this obstructionist nonsense.

Apparantly, not.

Lemur

01-22-2010, 20:13

But that rule now appears to be ignored more often than it is observed, as Republican politicians take to the world's stages to criticize President Barack Obama's policies on everything from climate change to the coup in Honduras to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
I think you missed a biggie, Senators McCain and Lieberman opposing our President's Middle East policy in a public interview while on foreign soil. Quite ugly (http://matzav.com/lieberman-and-mccain-in-israel-back-netanyahu-against-obama). They basically said, "The President can say what he likes, but we will prevent him from altering policy."

To me this is roughly equivalent to having two top-shelf Dem Senators declaring that they would prevent a Republican president from applying any pressure to Chávez while they tour Venezuela. But then, I guess this falls into the "Israel can do no wrong" thing that I have never understood.

Louis VI the Fat

01-22-2010, 20:16

How about the GOP tries to work out means to reduce the deficit that both parties can agree to, in an effort to form a sustainable solution that helps reduce actual debt for the actual American taxpayer?

WASHINGTON — Top Republicans on Wednesday were hostile toward President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s plan to create a bipartisan commission on cutting projected deficits, raising doubts about the prospects of a main piece of his budget strategy.

Senator Mitch McConnell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mitch_mcconnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, was evasive when pressed by reporters at the Capitol. “I’m not going to decide today what we’re going to do in the future,” he said. But the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_a_boehner/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Ohio, seemed to suggest that Republicans might not take their allotted seats on a commission.

“This sounds like political cover for Washington Democrats who are starting to realize that their out-of-control spending is scaring the hell out of the American people,” Mr. Boehner said of the tentative deal between the White House and Congressional Democratic leaders on Tuesday night.
Under that plan, Mr. Obama would establish by executive order an 18-member bipartisan panel to propose how to balance future tax revenue and entitlement program benefits. The group’s recommendations would be due by Dec. 1 — after the November elections. Then Congressional leaders would put the package to a vote.

Democrats expected that Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner would not be supportive given their party’s general opposition to raising taxes and to compromising with Mr. Obama. But Democrats figured that ultimately Republicans would be hard pressed to reject the president’s overture to help reduce the debt, since most of it results from tax and spending policies enacted in recent years, when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/politics/21deficit.html?ref=politics

The Republicans won't even help clean up their own mess. The strategy is to obstruct, fuel ire and hatred, and count firmly on the US electorate to have a short memory.

Edit:
I think you missed a biggie, Senators McCain and Lieberman opposing our President's Middle East policy in a public interview while on foreign soil.There are so many acts of Republican sedition it is hard to keep track.

When will the first troops die because of this? America's enemies are having a ball.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 22:25

If the democrats haven't done anything, I guess that conservatives who want to keep the status quo should be cheering them on.

Conservatives don't want to keep the status quo, we just don't want that sort of "change."

Beskar

01-22-2010, 23:49

Conservatives don't want to keep the status quo, we just don't want that sort of "change."

Correct, they want regression.

That is why they don't want status quo or progression, Sasaki.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 00:02

Correct, they want regression.

Wrong.

Beskar

01-23-2010, 00:10

Wrong.

No it isn't, the oxymoronical "right" who are against progress, want to regress to states such as having a heirarchical monarchy.

I believe even you share this opinion, EMFM, with your want of a Kaiser.

So how is this wrong?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 00:18

So how is this wrong?

Because our opinions aren't "regressive", they're just different. The left also wants things that have been tried before in other places, that doesn't make them "regressive" either. I'd remind you that no culture or state has ever tried the system that I have theorized about before.

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 00:25

I think you missed a biggie, Senators McCain and Lieberman opposing our President's Middle East policy in a public interview while on foreign soil. Quite ugly (http://matzav.com/lieberman-and-mccain-in-israel-back-netanyahu-against-obama). They basically said, "The President can say what he likes, but we will prevent him from altering policy."

To me this is roughly equivalent to having two top-shelf Dem Senators declaring that they would prevent a Republican president from applying any pressure to Chávez while they tour Venezuela. But then, I guess this falls into the "Israel can do no wrong" thing that I have never understood.

They opposed the Middle East Envoy's statements - something that wasn't repeated or supported publicly by Obama. And the situation with Israel is quite different from Venezuela.

I find the whole idea that Republicans are bringing about a new era of obstruction quite exaggerated. Or maybe Bush was simply a much more effective leader. And didn't Pelosi do a tour of the Mid-east when Bush was president?

No it isn't, the oxymoronical "right" who are against progress, want to regress to states such as having a heirarchical monarchy.

Care to actually try to discuss things instead of failed attempts at one-liners in all the threads you post in?

CR

Louis VI the Fat

01-23-2010, 00:52

I find the whole idea that Republicans are bringing about a new era of obstruction quite exaggerated. This is not your grandfather's GOP anymore.

'Unprecendented obstructionism as the new normal in American politics', lots of stats and numbers: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/19/826860/-For-GOP-and-Media,-Obstructionism-is-the-New-Normal

The Democrats indeed have a 59 seat minority.

"As long as I have served...I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a supermajority." - Joe Biden.

And didn't Pelosi do a tour of the Mid-east when Bush was president?Indeed Pelosi went to Syria. Her visit was widely criticised at home - as it ought to be.

DAMASCUS, Syria, April 3 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived in Syria on Tuesday for a visit that is seen as part of an attempt to sway Bush administration policy on Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

Ms. Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States, behind the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit Syria since relations between the countries faltered in 2003. She was greeted Tuesday afternoon at the airport in Damascus, the capital, by Walid al-Moallem, Syria’s foreign minister, and was taken on a tour of the old part of the city. She was to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and other senior officials on Wednesday.

At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi’s visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar’s government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04pelosi.html

Kralizec

01-23-2010, 01:03

Hah, I remember that. Pelosi also allowed herself to be photographed while wearing a headscarf. She also said in a discussion with Syrian officials that Israel was willing to resume the peace process with the Palestinians. The Israelis responded that they had said nothing of the sort :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 01:08

Oh my, a liberal blog linking to another liberal blog showing the results of only several votes in 20+ years. And with no evidence of 'unprecedented filibusters' - which was the domain of the Dems during the Bush years, and was only projected poorly to be higher by the Republicans. Now, I'm sure bills have gotten passed in the Senate, so the GOP isn't opposing everything.

The dems filibustered a number of Bush's judicial appointees as well.

Maybe the dems ought to stop whining and get on leading. Either persuade the GOP to go along with some bills or use the press to force them to.

Bush did it just fine, but I suppose that's only because he was a much more effective leader.

CR

Subotan

01-23-2010, 01:11

"[Our opposition to Healthcare reform] is going to be a holy war," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday evening.

Wow, just wow. I know the USA just pretends to be a secular republic, but that's just maleovelent.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-23-2010, 01:36

Conservatives don't want to keep the status quo, we just don't want that sort of "change."

But the democrats are failing to change anything, it is being said.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 02:14

But the democrats are failing to change anything, it is being said.

Then the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats not changing anything, and are therefore in favour of change. :beam:

Wow, just wow. I know the USA just pretends to be a secular republic, but that's just maleovelent.

It is a secular republic, and that statement in no way negates that fact, as you know.

KukriKhan

01-23-2010, 04:30

Yanno... I used to view our Evil_Maniac From Mars as an attention-seeking kinda guy, what with his choice of names and all (no offense, E :bow:)

Lately, I've come to regard him as a stentorophonic, while whispering, Voice of Reason.

on-topic: Mr. Scott Brown: interesting to see what he does in the next 90 days, and whether Mass thinks they got their money's worth, or have buyer's remorse.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 04:32

Yanno... I used to view our Evil_Maniac From Mars as an attention-seeking kinda guy, what with his choice of names and all (no offense, E :bow:)

None taken. I chose the name, if I recall correctly, because it was the first thing that came to mind at the time. Nonetheless, you're probably right about how I was in the past. Hopefully that hasn't tainted too many views of me, anonymous though this forum is.

Thank you for the compliment. :bow:

Xiahou

01-23-2010, 04:39

I say bring back the knock-down, drag-out, bring in the cots filibusters of old. When the senate created the two track rule, they not only took all the fun out of filibusters, but they also made them effortless to maintain. :no:

If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.

Ironside

01-23-2010, 10:12

Then the Republicans are opposed to the Democrats not changing anything, and are therefore in favour of change. :beam:

They are going to create a status quo in healthcare for at least a decade if this bill fails. Who are going to risk severe damage to their reputation by trying it next?

I say bring back the knock-down, drag-out, bring in the cots filibusters of old. When the senate created the two track rule, they not only took all the fun out of filibusters, but they also made them effortless to maintain. :no:

If you want to have endless debate to delay a bill, you should be expected to debate endlessly. Now days, they can just say they're going to filibuster and the senate moves on to another bill.

That would probably be useful. It's supposed to be a last way defense and not an every day move.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 19:13

They are going to create a status quo in healthcare for at least a decade if this bill fails. Who are going to risk severe damage to their reputation by trying it next?

Since most people evidently would prefer the status quo than this bill, that is to be preferred. A better option would have been a truly bipartisan solution.

Subotan

01-23-2010, 20:34

It is a secular republic, and that statement in no way negates that fact, as you know.

OK, so if government and religion are separate, why is there only one atheist congressman? Why would less people vote for a Muslim or a Gay Presidential candidate over an atheist one? Christianity is de facto the state religion.

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 20:46

:rolleyes:

That proves nothing; people may vote less for Muslim candidates, but they can still vote for them. Gah, why does it seem like I have to spell everything out?! :wall:

CR

Major Robert Dump

01-23-2010, 21:24

Well, there are also not very many people in federal elected positions who are under 30. Those in office are all old, which obviously means the country is racist against young people.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 22:45

:rolleyes:

That proves nothing; people may vote less for Muslim candidates, but they can still vote for them. Gah, why does it seem like I have to spell everything out?! :wall:

CR

:yes:

What matters is that the electorate has the choice to vote for a member of a certain religion or not, and that they are free to practice their own religion as they please. If every member of Congress was a devout Christian, America would still be a secular nation.

Secularism is not atheism, secularism is freedom.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-23-2010, 22:48

Since most people evidently would prefer the status quo than this bill, that is to be preferred.

How is that different from populism? Does the best bill depend on what the people want?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 22:54

How is that different from populism? Does the best bill depend on what the people want?

Well, theoretically at least, one should do what the people want. It doesn't matter, since in this case the people are right. This bill isn't the best, and what is needed is a truly bipartisan, well thought-out solution. Congress needs to take their time - rushing things through will just make them worse.

Furunculus

01-24-2010, 00:58

just found this on Martha Coakleys liberal facism:
http://www.popehat.com/2010/01/15/liberal-fascism-the-not-so-secret-history-of-martha-coakley/

Scienter

01-24-2010, 16:05

:yes:

What matters is that the electorate has the choice to vote for a member of a certain religion or not, and that they are free to practice their own religion as they please. If every member of Congress was a devout Christian, America would still be a secular nation.

Secularism is not atheism, secularism is freedom.

IDK about that. If every member of Congress was a fundamentalist Christian, they'd find a way to legislate their beliefs into our laws.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-24-2010, 16:21

IDK about that. If every member of Congress was a fundamentalist Christian, they'd find a way to legislate their beliefs into our laws.

Nonetheless, having a Congress made up entirely of members of any one religion does not in itself make for a non-secular state.

Beskar

01-24-2010, 17:37

Evil_Maniac From Mars, it might be slightly off-topic, but I wondered something a momnt.

Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-24-2010, 17:49

Evil_Maniac From Mars, it might be slightly off-topic, but I wondered something a momnt.

Do you fully support a secular state, or in favour of a non-secular state?

I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.

Beskar

01-24-2010, 18:05

I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.

It is atheist only in the sense it seperates religion from the state (which is as it should be), however, I do agree, a secular state is not a Atheist Theocracy.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-24-2010, 18:10

It is atheist only in the sense it seperates religion from the state

That isn't a atheist, but rather a neutral stance. ~;)

Ironside

01-24-2010, 18:54

I strongly support a secular state. I dislike the common presumption on both ends of the debate that a secular state is an atheist state.

What would you consider the main points in a secular state?

More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.

The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.

That while they're both secular, at least in theory.

Beskar

01-24-2010, 18:57

That isn't a atheist, but rather a neutral stance. ~;)

Shush, we were agreeing, don't try to ruin the moment where hell freezes over.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-24-2010, 19:05

What would you consider the main points in a secular state?

Freedom of religion combined with the legal separation of belief systems from the state (religious or atheist).

More in general, one very different thing how secularism is treated is that here in Sweden and I think most of Europe, is that secularism means that you do not as a politician publically reference to God to explain your opinions or actions. Considered bad form.

That isn't secularism, just social pressure. Secularism is having the freedom to state your religion, to talk about it, and to reference God if you so choose in the manner of your choosing.

The combination of the US obsession of the politician's family and the dislike of aetheists makes the US almost the opposite.

Some groups dislike atheists, and in a secular state, that is their right. The reverse is also true, and it is also their right.

Subotan

01-24-2010, 19:25

So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-24-2010, 19:38

So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?

That is a difficult question, but I would argue that - in general - yes, they are.

Beskar

01-24-2010, 19:42

So are Sweden or the UK, with their own state religions, secular states?

No. Religion is seperate from the state.

While in practise in UK at least, the church has lost a lot of power. However, they still have their seats in the House of Lords and other political institutions, have hold an political influence.

CountArach

01-25-2010, 01:05

That is a difficult question, but I would argue that - in general - yes, they are.
Can you please justify that view for me? I mean having a State religion, by definition, is not Secular. Yes, Freedom of Religion is protected and allowed, there is no denying that the Church plays some role in the public sphere, rather than the private.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-25-2010, 21:03

I agree with Xiahou. If you're going to allow filibustering as a parliamentary tactic, then at least have the "respect for the process" needed to require them to actually filibuster. The whole point is for the opposition to publicly take the stance that issue X is so important that preventing it is worth stopping ALL legislative efforts. If the opposition doesn't pay a price to block the legislation, at least on some level, then it's a bit silly. The new pseudofilibuster stuff just allows the tactic to be employed ad nauseum with little political cost to the opposition group -- the point of the filibuster historically was NOT to create a need for 60 votes to accomplish anything, but to allow the opposition to take a stand and make it count....as long as they were willing to pay the price.

I have to agree with Arach. If you have a state religion, you do not have -- at least de jure -- a secular government (though of course several are de facto secular, e.g. UK).

Subotan

01-25-2010, 21:08

In that case, if we can have de facto secular states, we can have states where there is a de facto state religion.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-25-2010, 21:19

In that case, if we can have de facto secular states, we can have states where there is a de facto state religion.

A reasonable point.

My own country, founded as a secular state with no official religion -- indeed, a state religion is specifically proscribed -- was profoundly influenced from its inception by that set of mores/beliefs which we label "judeo-christian" values. To suggest otherwise would be in error.

Kralizec

01-25-2010, 21:25

In that case, if we can have de facto secular states, we can have states where there is a de facto state religion.

Clever, but I'd have to disagree.

The state structure in the USA is secular. The political culture, on the other hand, is largely religious.

Conversely the UK doesn't have a secular state but the political culture is mostly secular.

drone

01-25-2010, 21:30

I agree with Xiahou. If you're going to allow filibustering as a parliamentary tactic, then at least have the "respect for the process" needed to require them to actually filibuster. The whole point is for the opposition to publicly take the stance that issue X is so important that preventing it is worth stopping ALL legislative efforts. If the opposition doesn't pay a price to block the legislation, at least on some level, then it's a bit silly. The new pseudofilibuster stuff just allows the tactic to be employed ad nauseum with little political cost to the opposition group -- the point of the filibuster historically was NOT to create a need for 60 votes to accomplish anything, but to allow the opposition to take a stand and make it count....as long as they were willing to pay the price.

:yes: And the C-SPAN ratings would soar as the Honorable Senator from the great state of Wherever prattles on and on, weaving verbose prose and colorful anecdotes into a heroic attempt to best Strom's record time. With the current partisan obstruction, you could probably create a filibuster fantasy league...

Major Robert Dump

01-26-2010, 06:36

So, has anyone stopped to consider that since Mass already has public health care that this was less a referendum on national healthcare/Obama and more-less people not really giving a turd and just picking who they thought was the better candidate.

I mean, hypothetically, if I lived in Mass and liked public care, I would vote Brown because then I would think a national system would not derail my state system.

Lemur

01-26-2010, 06:56

MRD raises a very good point, and the post-election polling (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/22/what-happened/) is ... confusing, to say the least. Poor Senator Brown has a very mixed-up constituency.

Looking at what Brown’s voters want him to do with respect to health care, we see that they are divided right down the middle: 50% (47% strongly) do want Brown to work to halt Democratic health care efforts, and 48% (40% strongly) want him to work with Democrats to make changes to their proposals. Half of Brown’s voters want him to sink Obama’s agenda, full stop, and approximately half of them want him to collaborate with Democrats. That is what we might call a mixed message.

Major Robert Dump

01-26-2010, 08:57

I just find it highly conspicuous that both sides make this out to be the election that will accurately gauge the disposition of people towards the president's health care agenda when in fact it is the state that stands to suffer the least OR lose the least in either scenario of health care reform.

Really stupid, IMO, and typical sabre rattling garbage that saturates the political process and its reporting.

Lemur

02-25-2010, 15:35

How quickly revolutions eat their own ... Brown voted for the recent jobs bill, which included heaping piles of tax cuts, and was therefore socialism. His followers have turned on him like the Judas he is (http://gawker.com/5478186/which-enraged-scott-brown-facebook-fan-comment-is-your-favorite) ...

Facebook: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/340x_brown2.jpg

Twitter: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/scott-brown-rino.jpg
The teabagging set are also defacing his daughter's Facebook page. Stay classy, kids!

Subotan

02-25-2010, 16:27

I like the one suggesting that there is a Constitutional Amendment for impeaching Senators via Facebook

Centurion1

02-25-2010, 17:22

He is the most liberal republican in the governemnet even more so than olympia snowe.

ICantSpellDawg

02-25-2010, 17:51

I agree, the backlash is absurd. He has to march lock-step with the GOP on every issue? C'mon.

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 18:12

He is the most liberal republican in the governemnet even more so than olympia snowe.
Yeah, but McCain had a stunning score of mid to low 50s on his conservative voting record score. I remember reading somewhere that he even had a '47% liberal score'. Washington Post article (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2008/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos.html), for instance, notes him as having a paltry 56% conservative score in 2006, and his conservative score has been falling ever since 1980s, when he consistently shown higher than 80% scores. According to the article, again, these ratings change when the point of view shifts. On social issues, Senior Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas seems to have the highest liberal rating, with a mere 53% conservative rating. McCain, in comparison, has 46% conservative rating on social issues. But Seantor Brownback's liberal stance on social issues is balanced out by his stunning 92% conservative on economic issues. Then again, fiscal conservatism is more popular than most Republican social stances.

All this, however, is from a 2007 article, so Scott Brown is not mentioned, of course. But neither is Olympia Snowe, strangely enough, and she was very much there back in 2007... Who knows.

I agree, the backlash is absurd. He has to march lock-step with the GOP on every issue? C'mon.
Well no, but I think bi-partisanship is a tad overrated - over-hyped is the more correct word, since no one actually tries to be bi-partisan even to the more limited extend I would favour. But just as media neutrality/non-bias, bi-partisanship is unnatural. Party discipline still exists. Then again, I have no idea what is the record of Scott Brown. So I cannot say just how much he agrees with his party.

One thing I will note, however, that I live in a district (1st Florida) which elected Jeff Miller, one of the most, ahem, rectal Republican representative alive, with a wholly perfect or almost-perfect 99/100% conservative score. He even boasts of this on his site. Gawd, and I signed up for his newsletter too, like a good boy who minds his politics. This bloke is now tea-partying. What a surprise... Except that he began doing it back when it was still called astroturfing even by numerous conservatives.

Centurion1

02-25-2010, 20:10

Yeah, but McCain had a stunning score of mid to low 50s on his conservative voting record score. I remember reading somewhere that he even had a '47% liberal score'. Washington Post article, for instance, notes him as having a paltry 56% conservative score in 2006, and his conservative score has been falling ever since 1980s, when he consistently shown higher than 80% scores. According to the article, again, these ratings change when the point of view shifts. On social issues, Senior Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas seems to have the highest liberal rating, with a mere 53% conservative rating. McCain, in comparison, has 46% conservative rating on social issues. But Seantor Brownback's liberal stance on social issues is balanced out by his stunning 92% conservative on economic issues. Then again, fiscal conservatism is more popular than most Republican social stances.

All this, however, is from a 2007 article, so Scott Brown is not mentioned, of course. But neither is Olympia Snowe, strangely enough, and she was very much there back in 2007... Who knows.

I dont particulary care for John Mccain not conservative enough for me. My father liked him because he was a fellow vetrean pilot and because he supported the war. No other reason to be honest with you.

Tea partying is fair and civilized. But when there are gay pride marches or any form of demonstration by Democrats its all good. I went to one there is no racism or hatred as people on MSNBC will tell you. My favorite is how liberals have to defend all of their policies by saying if you disagree your a racist. MSNBC had fried chicken and collard greens for MLK Jr. day. Imagine if FOX did that.

Subotan

02-25-2010, 21:19

My favorite is how liberals have to defend all of their policies by saying if you disagree your a racist
"Have to"? :inqusitive:

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 21:52

I dont particulary care for John Mccain not conservative enough for me.
Ermh, I thought you were more or less moderate... Whatever, he is indeed quite liberal for a GOP member. Which of his stances do you particularly oppose? Oh, and a shame it was that McCain had to run against Obama. Had he ran against some other Democrat, I would have voted for McCain instead, despite being a Democrat myself. Then again, the prospects of McCain handling the foreign policy frighten me...

Tea partying is fair and civilized.
Ha, good joke. Take your tongue out of the ginger jar, Centurion :grin:. Do you really know what they do there? What they say about Obama? Do you know how much the radical right groups, the militia groups favour and participate in the movement?

But when there are gay pride marches or any form of demonstration by Democrats its all good.
Do you honestly not see the difference? :inquisitive: I mean, you could have given a better example. Take a pro-choice rally - that is a good example, and relatively common Democrat gathering place. But a gay rights march is different. A gay rights march is little different from any other civil rights march, or the Civil Rights marches. They are an example of a minority facing discrimination and backlash, which is why they march. You can say all you want about media, and gays choosing to be gay, but the fact of the matter is that in many places, the Bible Belt especially, the gays have a tough time unless they do no conceal their sexual orientation. Not even close to what the blacks had admittedly, but bad enough for them to have a right to a march. Especially since their marches are arguably more peaceful than the Tea Party protest - the teabaggers are a backlash movement after all, with their fiery anti-Obama, anti-gov, anti-Democrat rhetoric. In broad terms, the only 'anti-' in a gay rights march is anti-discrimination.

I went to one there is no racism or hatred as people on MSNBC will tell you.
I am sorry, I do not fully understand what you mean :sweatdrop:. I 'went to one'? I am confused - are you sure you have the grammar and usage correct?

My favorite is how liberals have to defend all of their policies by saying if you disagree your a racist.
No different from the GOP methods of debate. Some of the favourite GOP defences are 'unpatriotic', 'godless', 'weak on crime/terrorists'... Politics is crap like this. Fallacies fly thick. And some of the so-called defences are partially valid, on both sides. Republicans are not known for their kindness towards blacks or minorities. Not since the Southern Strategy, and some instances before. Even the pride of the GOP achievements for the black cause, the emancipation of the slaves, was applied for practical reasons, applied to first only the Southern states, and was instituted by a racist, in the time when racism was becoming less and less acceptable in the ranks of the intellectual elite.

MSNBC had fried chicken and collard greens for MLK Jr. day. Imagine if FOX did that.
Interesting. But the context matters. Very much so. For one, no-one denies or finds any shame in the fact that soul-food is one of the things representing the African American culture and community. Secondly, no comparisons to FOX in this case are valid. FOX has earned its reputation well, as did MSNBC. FOX is well-known for its uncomfortable relations with the minorities and the concept of multiculturalism. Even their prime figure - Bill O'Reilly is notorious for instances of intolerance too many to count by now.

You have to understand that when a person or a company has a long record of such things, it is closely scrutinised and cannot afford to do much. Such is the nature of life, and this is only fair. A person who is well-known for his/her acceptance of multiculturalism, for his/her tolerance, for the advocacy of the minority rights - such a person is allowed looser conduct. This is often instinctual at times. Everyone make mistakes, and the people who have a long history of such mistakes are the ones who get slammed on the wrists for making another such transgression.

FOX lost their credibility a long time ago, and it shows little signs of attempting to regain any of it. MSNBC is biased, notably so, but it more or less accurate and well, most Orgahs know what I mean when I say there is a difference between MSNBC and FOX.

Lemur

02-25-2010, 21:56

Ha, good joke. Take your tongue out of the ginger jar, Centurion :grin:. Do you really know what they do there? What [the tea partiers] say about Obama? Do you know how much the radical right groups, the militia groups favour and participate in the movement?
Just for fun and giggles, try Googling "stormfront tea party movement" and watch the sparks fly. Sample link: (http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/White_Supremacists_July_4_Tea_Parties.htm)

Stormfront, the most popular white supremacist Internet forum, is home to discussion between extremists eager to influence the [tea party events]. In addition to circulating a list of local organizers and promoting planned rallies, Stormfront members are trying to find ways to involve themselves in the events. In posts to the forum, many voice their intent to attend the Tea parties for the purpose of cultivating an "organized grassroots White mass movement."

"We need a relevent [sic] transitional envelope-pushing flyer for the masses. Take these Tea Party Americans by the hand and help them go from crawling to standing independently and then walking toward racialism."
"We intervene to shape the new pro-White grassroots agenda from within the crowd. We intervene for active effect at the event, for advancement of White racial consciousness and solidarity, and for the growth of the organized grassroots White mass movement and the most perceptive racially aware activist element."
"I also agree that spreading the WN message at these events is a good idea-it's time already,we've gotta do it!! Carefully, of course."
"A big crowd of irate White folks protesting the government seems like the perfect time and place for us WN's to promote our cause, at least to my way of thinking."
"I distributed WN literature at the last Tea Party in Phoenix. I will be doing it again in July. This is the time and the place. For those on a budget, I would suggest printing business cards with the web address of your group or organization. Keep it simple."
"I think they'd be ideal for spreading WN literature and gaining recruits in large numbers, more quickly."

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 22:13

The sad thing is, many of the tea-partiers do not need too much prodding, especially with how good some of the StormFront agitation is. All of this depends on how subtle such far-right movements will do their business. From what I have seen on Stormfront, the people are not as radical as you would expect, and most are relatively decent, and manage to avoid direct hatred of any minority, instead relying on various indirect methods.

Yes, this is worrisome, but the militia movements literally organised the teabaggers, so, or at least played a good part. The militia movements, after all, hold very similar views to much of the early tea-party movement. They still share far too many commonalities.

PanzerJaeger

02-25-2010, 22:14

Wow. So now its come to posting oh-so-tenuous links between Stormfront and the Tea Party. Mr. Olbermann, you have a show to get ready for! What are you doing messing around on a gaming forum?

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 22:18

Wow. So now its come to posting oh-so-tenuous links between Stormfront and the Tea Party. Mr. Olbermann, you have a show to get ready for! What are you doing messing around on a gaming forum?
What use is there in denying the link? Just as what begins as a radical left movement will attract yet more questionable groups, so will a similar far-right movement do the same with the galvanisation of the even more radical, equally questionable groups on the opposite spectrum.

EDIT: And if you think Olbermann is the worst or close to being so that the left has, then I daresay you can be proud of the right beating the left in this regard. Some of the FOX people, in fact, quite a bit of them, make even Olbermann seem tame. Olbermann is biased as hell, but people like Beck and Limbaugh simply have no business disseminating news and actually gaining such widespread popularity among the right.

PanzerJaeger

02-25-2010, 22:26

Yes, this is worrisome, but the militia movements literally organised the teabaggers, so, or at least played a good part. The militia movements, after all, hold very similar views to much of the early tea-party movement. They still share far too many commonalities.

One more thing.... this is too funny... I just have to ask. Where are all of these right wing militias organizing and planning and such? :laugh4:

I live in the South. You know, the heart of militant right wing-ism... or so they say. We've got a place in Tennessee and one Alabama. You would think I'd see them out... marching... organizing... being all right wingy and evil... In the 11 years I've been here, not a sighting yet. I even drove through a Tea Party rally earlier in the year. Strangely, they all had hair on top of their heads and there was not a Swastika tatoo or a firearm to be seen! And in Alabama too! Crazy, I know.

So where are they? I might just like to join one.. sounds fun! You get to march around and play with guns and talk about how much you don't like Obama... right up my alley! Sure you can find them on the internet.. but you can find anything on the internet. I want to see these massive militia groups out organizing in my community!

Sasaki Kojiro

02-25-2010, 22:32

EDIT: And if you think Olbermann is the worst or close to being so that the left has, then I daresay you can be proud of the right beating the left in this regard. Some of the FOX people, in fact, quite a bit of them, make even Olbermann seem tame. Olbermann is biased as hell, but people like Beck and Limbaugh simply have no business disseminating news and actually gaining such widespread popularity among the right.

None of these people do news. So the way to judge their quality is by how entertaining they are, cause that's their job.

Beck is the most entertaining from the limited amount I've seen.

Vuk

02-25-2010, 22:33

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 22:35

One more thing.... this is too funny... I just have to ask. Where are all of these right wing militias organizing and planning and such? :laugh4:

I live in the South. You know, the heart of militant right wing-ism... or so they say. We've got a place in Tennessee and one Alabama. You would think I'd see them out... marching... organizing... being all right wingy and evil... In the 11 years I've been here, not a sighting yet. I even drove through a Tea Party rally earlier in the year. Strangely, they all had hair on top of their heads and there was not a Swastika tatoo or a firearm to be seen! And in Alabama too! Crazy, I know.

So where are they? I might just like to join one.. sounds fun! You get to march around and play with guns and talk about how much you don't like Obama... right up my ally! Sure you can find them on the internet.. but you can find anything on the internet. I want to see these massive militia groups out organizing in my community!
Nice reductio ad absurdum... As a matter of fact, Alabama is not bad at all in this regard. Not according to both ADL and APLC (as well as their magazine, Intelligence Report, which monitors radical groups across the US).

As I said, even the StormFront members fit rather poorly into the stereotypes. And if they are smart, they will not wave around swastikas or such. Nor even their own site has swastikas on it. Maybe in it, but not on it. Militia movements exist, alright, and they are doing well nowadays. Their anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gun control platform is none too radical, and it appeals to most sensible Republicans. Now, the degree of weapons stockpiling and survivalist rubbish is off-putting, but that can be toned-down voluntarily to make a better presentation. Very few of the militia members will strut around saying 'I am a part of the militia movement'. It is not that simple, and nothing is black and white.

EDIT: Knowing that PanzerJaeger and Vuk are the most ardent conservatives here, to put it nicely, they are in a poor position to protest too much. Especially without offering any facts. I know at least some militias and Neo-Nazis are involved in the Tea party movement. It is only logical - and I already said the same would happen on the left side of the political spectrum. I have been on the actual Stormfront forums. I will link to the teabagger threads if you wish, where so many say they will attend, and debate on how to push their agenda. Gun shows, I read, used to be the prime recruiting places for such groups. Now the tea-party protests are proving to be the stuff of the dreams IRL to the far-right organisations. Wit all this, it is up to you to prove me wrong.

EDIT2:
AP, Lemur, do you have no low?
Call me low, I can take that, especially from my opponent, but I would tread more carefully by Lemur, as his contributions to the Backroom are immense, and his reputation is solid.

Really, you don't agree with someone so you resort to insinuating that they are racists?
When did I say that? Militias are not necessarily racist, and that is very rarely their main platform, or even their platform at all. They do not love the minorities, as a slight understatement, but they are not Stormfront or National Alliance. As for the Neo-Nazis, they want to take part in the movement, and they do so, but their influence is negligible compared to militias. I am sorry, Vuk, but how can you deny that at the very least some of the Tea party people are not far-right?

You two should work for MSNB. On second thought don't, you are probably too radical for them. :P
The first suggestion is fine. The second, I suggest you rescind :P. I am centre-left. You are, well, I do not need to say what you know yourself. I was a Republican when I came to the Backroom. But eventually I became disgruntled with their [close very intimate] ties to the Religious Right and left. McCain-Obama election was quite a tough choice for me, as I had more respect for Obama's ability, but at the same time more respect for McCain's platform. I sided with McCain, but then regretted that and switched to Obama, a few months after the election.

Nor is Lemur far-left, but that is up to him to answer - or not answer at all.

EDIT3: Somehow, I have the feeling neither of our smilies (:P) is sincere...

PanzerJaeger

02-25-2010, 23:11

I'm sorry. I really don't mean to be so flippant, but this all reads like a bad diary at the Kos.

First, Lemur subtly links the Tea Party movement with Stormfront, while leaving just enough wiggle room to escape such a charge if need be. Just for fun and giggles, mind you. Then comes the predictable hand wringing about those evil right wing militias who apparently have enormous political power and influence... leading to such completely ridiculous statements such as:

but the militia movements literally organised the teabaggers, so, or at least played a good part.

And, of course, when questioned about such a claim, we're left with vague claims of "I just know they are involved", "they're hiding amonst us!" and my personal favorite "Ive seen threads on Stormfront man, I've seen threads"!!

:laugh4:

Aemilius Paulus

02-25-2010, 23:20

And, of course, when questioned about such a claim, we're left with vague claims of "I just know they are involved", "they're hiding amonst us!" and my personal favorite "Ive seen threads on Stormfront man, I've seen threads"!!
OK, I can retract the claim about the role of the militias, but you still have a large amount of the radical right among the teabaggers. Laugh all you want, but the Tea-Party activity on the Stormfront is considerable. I have to go no, but I will provide some links to those discussions later.

Subotan

02-25-2010, 23:31

AP, Lemur, do you have no low? Really, you don't agree with someone so you resort to insinuating that they are racists? You two should work for MSNB. On second thought don't, you are probably too radical for them. :P
So a reverse argument by association? The Tea Party movement is a mass right wing populist movement. It is highly likely that groups which thrive on right wing populism, such as white nationalists, Stormfront etc. are bound to target the Tea Party movement. Whether they have had any success, I have no idea, but there is certainly cause for concern, and sticking your fingers in your ears for political points is reckless.

Centurion1

02-26-2010, 03:07

QUOTE]Interesting. But the context matters. Very much so. For one, no-one denies or finds any shame in the fact that soul-food is one of the things representing the African American culture and community. Secondly, no comparisons to FOX in this case are valid. FOX has earned its reputation well, as did MSNBC. FOX is well-known for its uncomfortable relations with the minorities and the concept of multiculturalism. Even their prime figure - Bill O'Reilly is notorious for instances of intolerance too many to count by now.

You have to understand that when a person or a company has a long record of such things, it is closely scrutinised and cannot afford to do much. Such is the nature of life, and this is only fair. A person who is well-known for his/her acceptance of multiculturalism, for his/her tolerance, for the advocacy of the minority rights - such a person is allowed looser conduct. This is often instinctual at times. Everyone make mistakes, and the people who have a long history of such mistakes are the ones who get slammed on the wrists for making another such transgression.

FOX lost their credibility a long time ago, and it shows little signs of attempting to regain any of it. MSNBC is biased, notably so, but it more or less accurate and well, most Orgahs know what I mean when I say there is a difference between MSNBC and FOX.[/QUOTE]

you have got to be ******** me. Name the event where FOX was racist. Because they have anti illegal immigration feelings. two of my aunts married mexicans and i dislike illegal immigration.

you are basically reading a little book of liberal ideology AP and its is very obvious. oyu can claim you are moderate and i believe you but you need to reread what you just said.

Have you been to a tea party rally. I have and i saw no swastika's or guns. Is disliking the president a crime. In fact i was with many of my fathers friends and their families. Yes that's right and we must all be scum of the earth for protesting.

Lemur that is total bull. That is a weak connection. hey guess what i get when i google barrack obama. I get links to the militant black panther websites. Do i think Obama is a black panther no because i dont make ridiculous assumptions about people.

And AP do not compare black civil rights to Gays. If you know many blacks resent this comparison. I think the way gays are treated is orrible in some cases but the plight of the African american and the Homosexual is far different as one prominent black comedian once said, "at least a gay can hide in the closet we just get blacker when we try."

And stop calling the tea party movements teabagging anyone associated with american slang knows how derogatory a term that is. I dont walk around insulting left organizations with derogatory terms.

Ermh, I thought you were more or less moderate... Whatever, he is indeed quite liberal for a GOP member. Which of his stances do you particularly oppose? Oh, and a shame it was that McCain had to run against Obama. Had he ran against some other Democrat, I would have voted for McCain instead, despite being a Democrat myself. Then again, the prospects of McCain handling the foreign policy frighten me...

I am on certain social issues he is not fiscally conservative enough for me.

Republicans are not known for their kindness towards blacks or minorities. Not since the Southern Strategy, and some instances before. Even the pride of the GOP achievements for the black cause, the emancipation of the slaves, was applied for practical reasons, applied to first only the Southern states, and was instituted by a racist, in the time when racism was becoming less and less acceptable in the ranks of the intellectual elite.

Do you want to take a **** on my face while your at it. Your telling me Democrats cultivate the minority vote for the love of minorities. That is a totally pragmatic decision and they do so to get minority votes. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

As I said, even the StormFront members fit rather poorly into the stereotypes. And if they are smart, they will not wave around swastikas or such. Nor even their own site has swastikas on it. Maybe in it, but not on it. Militia movements exist, alright, and they are doing well nowadays. Their anti-government, anti-tax, anti-gun control platform is none too radical, and it appeals to most sensible Republicans. Now, the degree of weapons stockpiling and survivalist rubbish is off-putting, but that can be toned-down voluntarily to make a better presentation. Very few of the militia members will strut around saying 'I am a part of the militia movement'. It is not that simple, and nothing is black and white.

Teapartyers (i understood you said militias but if the militias are in charge of everything) are stockpiling weapons now. please give me the links to this. Is owning a shotgun for hunting stockpiling weapons then cause arrest me and throw me in jail. This barely deigns a response.

So a reverse argument by association? The Tea Party movement is a mass right wing populist movement. It is highly likely that groups which thrive on right wing populism, such as white nationalists, Stormfront etc. are bound to target the Tea Party movement. Whether they have had any success, I have no idea, but there is certainly cause for concern, and sticking your fingers in your ears for political points is reckless.

There are self avowed terrorists and other undesirables all over democrat politics.

And by the by Rush Limbaugh is not a membe rof the FOX News Team.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-26-2010, 04:08

Keep things civil folks. Frequent use of *'d words is often a sign that you are getting a touch too passionate about an issue. Take a moment to re-read calmly before hitting send.

Lemur

02-26-2010, 04:43

What a frothy state I've whipped up with a simple Google search. Neato. Yes, it's true, you can put together whatever Google search you like and come up with interesting results (for example, "GOP old white men" scores me over 10 million linkies, so I win the internet). But the truth of the matter is that far-right separatist and white-supremacist groups are very happy about Glen Beck and the Tea Party. Whether they should view these developments in such a positive light is up for debate.

I would tread more carefully by Lemur, as his contributions to the Backroom are immense, and his reputation is solid.
Nonsense. The only thing of any significance that I've done in this forum was founding the News of the Weird thread. All else is chaff.

-edit-

Mr. Olbermann, you have a show to get ready for! What are you doing messing around on a gaming forum?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, when wingnuts need to conflate me with a talking head on MSNBC, I'd rather be the lesbian. I'll let you take your own pick between Coulter, Limbaugh and Beck.

And it's a darn good thing there's no racism or race-baiting on the rightwing—that's purely an invention of socialist eco-terrorist progressives (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/02/decoding-limbaugh.html).