Advertisement
While the energy of the anti-tax and anti-Big Government tea party movement may yet haunt Democrats in 2010, the first order of business appears to be remaking the Republican Party.
Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents.
www.politico.com/news/stor...28157.html
The struggle for ideological purity on the Right never ends . . . no one is "conservative" enough for these guys . . . not that they have much interest in governing the country, or have any clue how to do it . . .
Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents.
www.politico.com/news/stor...28157.html
The struggle for ideological purity on the Right never ends . . . no one is "conservative" enough for these guys . . . not that they have much interest in governing the country, or have any clue how to do it . . .
posted by:
|
Oregon
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:13 PMThe "Tea-Baggers" should've been teabagging during the Bush years. Nobody grew big gov't like G.W. Bush while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest top 1% and assorted deregulation ending in the near collapse of the economy. Bush turned every problem into a major crisis. Those who voted for him in 2004 should also be held accountable for keeping him in office/power for an additional 4 years. They should lose their right to vote. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 8:12 PM"Nobody grew big gov't like G.W. Bush"
While I admit that Bush was insane with the spending, and I was pissed about it, as are the Tea Party groups, I guess you've never heard of Barack Hussein Obama? Wanna compare numbers?
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:23 PMThe GOP is churning. They are lost and can't find a compass heading.
First the Christians dominated and it wasn't your grandfather's Christians either these were bible thumping knows what's best for everybody my way or the high way Christians - sort of the polar opposite politically from the progressives with all the same ugly features.
Then the crazy confusing party platform started to look like a bible study agenda and less like a political party platform.
Then the far right ultras got the loudspeakers and are scaring the hell out of every one with their uber conservative (Reagan, I hear, has officially rolled over in his grave). The Neo Cons are off marching to some bizarre beat with Jesus at the head of the parade.
The real conservatives: those people who don't think religion and politics make good bed fellows, want lower taxes, smaller government , a strong dollar, civil rights, privacy, police who really do serve and protect, and schools that teach academic subjects - those poor bastards can't seem to find a friend anywhere.
Well don't feel too badly for them. The Dems are not faring too much better.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 4:00 PMYep, the democrats still seem to have that "spineless" disease. Apparently it's a "pre-existing condition" & can't do anything about it. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 4:31 PMa progressive populism is needed, starting with democratic structuralism. . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 7:15 AMThe progressives don't seem to have any sense of individual rights. They are looking to squish everybody into one meaningless faceless mish mash and force everyone to tow their line. The progressives don't have anything good. They are every bit as dangerous as the Christians. Both think they know how best to run everyone else's lives and both are willing to force other people to suffer and lose their individualism and individual rights to get what they want.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 12:19 PM"the progressives" and "the Christians" are absurdly prejudiced terms. They speak of a simplified thought process.
In fact, "the Americans" are a remarkably diverse and complicated bunch; did you know?
Saying "the progressives are looking to squish everybody" or "the Christians want to control everyone" is just fearful bleating that has very little to do with any specific issue or reality - you will not find anyone sane willing to agree with that premise from a polemical standpoint - not only because it's uselessly vague and nakedly combative to speak in those terms but also because people who think that simply are often stupid. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 12:22 PM. . .and? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 1:35 PMMy point is that rhetoric that relies on imaginary clades like "the progressives" or "the Christians" is just unintelligent bigotry with no application, no merit, and no justification.
Use extant clades, even when indulging in prejudice, such as:
• The Democrats, the Republicans
• The 700 Club
• Fred Phelps supporters
• Bernie Saunders supporters
etc.. There is certainly no such group as "the progressives" nor "the Christians" that all agree on some kind of platform, agenda, criteria for inclusion. It's like saying "the blacks" only less immediately obviously full of shit. Just as shitty, in any case. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 1:45 PMActually, Blacks are much closer to being a cohesive group than religious voters. 95% of Blacks voted for Obama. The religious vote was divided somewhat by denomination, but mainly because most people in this country don't vote by religion.
elections.nytimes.com/2008/re...lls.html
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 5:09 PMgood luck with that clading
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 12:29 PMI agree with Loki -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 1:37 PM. . .then. . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 1:39 PMtheeennnn we'll all agree to stop being fools and start focusing on... pretty much *anything* of merit other than ignorantly divisive imaginary political blocs? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 5:41 PMimaginary? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 6:00 PMAnd here I thought that all politics had to offer today was imagery. Imaginary imagery. So the politicians of today have something real to offer their voters. Wow.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 6:03 PMHow do you tell if a voting bloc is imaginary? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 6:07 PMI believe in forging things. . .and I believe in moving from the general to the particular.
But I don't believe the American left is capable of doing what it takes to salvage the nation. . .
there is a lack of discipline and a surfeit of self absorption that will preclude people agreeing on any path, much less working together on any radically new project. . .and only radical change can pull us out of the mire. . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 7:27 PMI self-identify as a liberal, but I keep finding my ideas of intelligent growth and environmentalism keep coming back to the same word - Conserving!
If a true fiscal conservative arose in this country, with a better chance than Ron Paul, I would so get behind that candidate! -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 10:12 PMExcuse me, but to the best of my knowledge, the entire "tea bagger" movement -- if you can actually call it a movement -- consists of a couple of talk radio louts whipping a few thousand geriatric white people into meaningless public displays of organizational and intellectual weakness.
So far the tea baggers have failed to turn out any serious numbers at any of their lobbyist-organized "protests," even though the obsequiously "objective" news media continues to pretend they are a mass movement. They flood talk radio and newspaper comment columns with whining commentaries, but lack real numbers and any sort of organizational structure or commitment to even a short term plan of action. Remember that any moron with a computer and Internet access can post dozens of idiotic messages under numerous screen names. You have seen that right here on Tribe.net.
The tea baggers I have seen interviewed piss and moan but offer nothing in the way of substantial policies they want to see followed or serious reforms of the existing system. They express inchoate rage about the way things are but can't articulate exactly what it is they are angry about. In fact, asking them why they are pissed off only seems to make them madder -- apparently because they are not really sure.
In short, they seem to be textbook specimens of political alienation and anomie. It is hard to believe most of them even vote in national elections.
People like this are buffoons with nothing of significance to say and insufficient energy to do much more than show up with hand-lettered signs at phony demonstrations called by GOP hacks and publicists for special interest groups. They are are perfect candidates to become followers of clowns like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck -- entertainers who are more interested in whipping their followers into a frenzy than actually taking any concrete action. A tea bagger's idea of political activism is to knock back a half dozen drinks at the local tavern and bitch about liberals, or kick back with a beer in front of the TV and watch Bill O'Reilly , occasionally yelling "Yeah" at some inanity he utters while pumping his fist in the air.
Tea baggers seem to be mostly ignorant, lazy and motivated primarily by fear of foreigners and strangers. They lack the ideological coherence of brownshirts -- which would at least make them dangerous -- and they haven't the energy or backbone necessary to take any real action. They are just a broadcast bloviator's wet dream of a social movement. Anybody who takes them seriously is wasting his or her time. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 1:06 AMThey have no interest in governing, but are outraged at the idea that someone else may be attempting to do so. . . people like this cannot build coalitions, but they can break up ones that already exist . . . I expect to see the few remaining GOP moderates retire or switch parties . . . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 4:32 AMThis is a natural process, the Whigs went the way of the dodo many years ago, the Democrats were the conservatives when the progressive new party of Abraham Lincon showed up.
Maybe the Libertarians will fill in the vaccum vacated by the dead elephant in the room, but what I would LOVE to see happen is the Democrats return to the position of the Big Party/Big Money/Old School ideas position they were at in the 19th century. If then, someone like the Greens or Social Dems, or a NEW party like the Progressive Party can be the standard bearer for the left! Then the political pendulum of our nation could swing back to a moderate middle, rather than the threatening right side that it seems only every other country in the world can percieve. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 7:48 AM<Maybe the Libertarians will fill in the vaccum vacated by the dead elephant in the room, >
I doubt that. The libertarian party have never gotten much attention or votes because they have so few answers to any of the problems people and humanity are facing today. The Libertarian answer to everything is cut taxes and reduce government along with eliminate the FED. People don't buy that approach because the Libertarians have not been able to put forward a logical reason why that approach should work. A lot of people have figured out that the fairy dust of less regulation has been fundamentally behind the financial industry pushing the world to the brink of another great depression. The Libertarian party has not come up with the answers to the other side of the equation that being once we take off all the regulations from these guys what keeps them from just taking everything and turning the whole country out into the street? They don't have those answers. So like the Republican party they have a mantra and no understandable solutions. The Democrats are no better mind you. The only real hope to turn things around is a thrid (and fourth or fifth) party. But the two existing parties have the contribution game rigged to kill any such attempt.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 8:18 PMActually, if you take a look at the Libertarian plank, you'll see that they support the Constitution. Which, if you look at it, does allow for regulating the banking industry. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 8:36 PMThe Libertarians are perhaps the most viable of the "third" parties . . . but no party based on a narrow ideology has ever done well nationally. You can never persuade enough people to adopt a single point of view. A national party needs a broad coalition of diverse groups if it is to have any impact. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 9:22 PMNo party focused on some ideology that takes a manual to explain has ever amounted to spit.
People tend to vote what they think is their interest.
Create a party that speaks to the interest of the vast majority of Americans and you will have a party that can get elected.
Keep pissing around with parties that don't attempt to speak to the average American citizen's experience in a coherent and intelligent way and you are simply wasting your time. And by that, I mean Green, Libertarian, American Independent, Vegetarian, Communist, Democratic, Republican, etc., etc.
All of these are feel good parties that exist only to make their members feel good.
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:01 PMObeying the law is a narrow ideology? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:16 PMYes it is. It teaches you not to think.
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Thu, October 15, 2009 - 7:51 AM<Actually, if you take a look at the Libertarian plank, you'll see that they support the Constitution. Which, if you look at it, does allow for regulating the banking industry.>
Well that's interesting. Exactly in what part of the Constitution is the banking industry regulated? Point out that section please. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:02 PMInterstate Commerce. And you don't even need a Supreme Court to bend over backwards to rule that it fits, like they've done with so much since 1937.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 6:51 AM>> How do you tell if a voting bloc is imaginary? <<
If it actually only exists in the mind - that is, once you stop 'believing' in it you cannot find an example of it as a bloc.
"the Progressives" is an excellent example. Might as well say "The brown haired voters" or "the green eyed". The point about there being some black bloc was illustrative: people use bare data to "support" their prejudices - but, there is no "black bloc". There is no agenda, no platform, no elective criterion for membership, and no significant unifying principle to clade "black people" around. The observation that brown folks voted acertain way can be analyzed from many different angles, some of them socially dicey, but, after all, it is merely an observation of racism; the racism is ubiquitous. It's easily understood, also, imo.
>>So the politicians of today have something real to offer their voters. Wow. <<
Sure - the same thing they have been offering my entire life: distracting bs meant to disguise money grubbing and transparent lies.
The point was not about politicians, though, it's about making up pretend blocs to blame vague abstracts on; in this case, there's no direct accusation, even - just a general queasy "squishing" charge having something to do with a belief that The Progressives are consciously some new form of Cultural Revolution that opposes the (equally hilarious) sage conservatism of ...what? The Antiprogressives?
It's certainly not only modern faux-repub Galters making this kind of glib and baseless noise; those who identify as liberal are at least equally guilty of letting merely spiteful prejudice color their beliefs and words with baseless bigoted associations. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 7:40 AMSo you're saying they're just 'anti', what are you for, Loki?
Progressives? Anarchy? Syndicalism?
Is there anything you're stumping for,
or are you just tricking me into looking at your teabag again!
<washes eyes>
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 1:50 PM>>there is no "black bloc"
Maybe I should go to a shrink and tell him: "I had a horrible dream, I imagined that 95% of black people voted for Obama, can you help me, doc?" Then, he will give me some pills to cure this persistent delusion . . . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 3:17 PMMaybe you could tell him that it was 95% of black voters, not 95% of "black people" in the US, and then he won't need to give you any pills. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 5:30 PMSo presumably, the rest of them feel differently? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 8:58 AMPerhaps once you come to grips with your own racism, you will be in a better position to understand the racism of others?
Don't be ashamed, despite your complicity in the paradigm, just A) stop pretending you don't understand it, B) recognize that you've participated in bigoted stereotyping, and C) wake up to a brand new day, giving you another opportunity to use language correctly, in context, and without merely self-indulgent fallacies.
95% of *what* kind of people, again? And these people live where, now? And did what, now?
F, you're not only glaringly mistaken in your use of terms, here, you're *nakedly* biased against the simplest read of the stats you bungle. It's usually the province of the fake-right to cherry-pick, misstate, and pervert statistics, isn't it? Or is that maybe a broader-based reality than I'd previously allowed myself to see? Now that I think of it, you were also the one pretending to know what rednecks are all about based from a helicopter view and a wholehearted embracing of a stereotype not involved nor present in your daily life ... maybe I was hasty, maybe I wasn't allowing myself to see the self-blinkered bigot that was dangling in my face all this time? Or, are you the kind of person that can see your own wrongdoing, cop to it, and amend your mental habits? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 1:30 PMHa! You really ought to look at the links before calling someone a racist. This is obviously a subject you don't understand in the slightest.
elections.nytimes.com/2008/re...lls.html
The data as collected by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International based on questionnaires completed by 17,836 voteres leaving 300 polling places and 2,378 telephone interviews. If they followed the standard polling methods, those identified as "black" (95% of whom voted for Obama) were self-identified. That is, they were "black" because they said they were, and they were a "bloc" because they voted together.
You obviously have personal ideas about racial identity, which differ from how people identify themselves, but I would say that imposing your own racial views on strangers is a biased attitude, and I would warn you against it. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:07 PMSo, you believe that an appreciable number of respondents lied when they said they were black? Or what? How does this refute the statement that 95% of black voters voted for Barack? I know, you don't want to admit that anybody but Republicans can be racist, but the facts tell a different story. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:11 PMMy apologies, Forrest. I misread what was going on here, and thought you were trying to refute the statistics that show that Loki is wrong. When in fact, you were showing Loki to BE wrong. Again, my apologies. Loki is wrong.
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 12:27 PMUtter nonsense. That statistical correlation does not alone make it a "fact" that 95% of black voters are racist. You only assume that's what it means, because you assume they couldn't vote for him for other reasons.
In other words you really assume the worst of them from the start, and then based on this assumption and one 'fact' you self-righteously and quite ironically try to castigate blacks en masse for being racist. Impressively irrational as usual.
That single correlation only shows that most blacks are liberals and Democrats, and that's been true for a lot longer than Obama's been on the political scene. And all to defend some strawman about "nobody but Republicans can be racist," as if anyone here has ever argued such a stupid thing.
Surely Lester, even you can do better than that. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 12:40 PMYeah, 92% of blacks voted for Gore in 2000, so calling them racist because they voted for Obama is quite a stretch. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:33 PMwell we have to call them something besides smart, right?
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:35 PMI never said that all of the black voters that voted for Obama voted for him for purely racist reasons. That's you, projecting your own thoughts into the mix. Most people, of all colors, that voted for Obama, did it out of sheer ignorance.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:27 PM>>>>>How does this refute the statement that 95% of black voters voted for Barack? I know, you don't want to admit that anybody but Republicans can be racist, but the facts tell a different story.
Most people whom are racist often don't view themselves as such. Deniel largely allows this to continue. Now this coule be true for blacks, but as Forrest pointed out, 92% of blacks voted for Al Gore.
People usually vote from their experience, not necessarily because of race, nor from absurd ideas such as left or right with doesn't tell you much anyway. Blacks, whom are often conservative, have voted mostly against the Republican Party since the Great Depression, because they have been treated badly by them. The elections last year also had very obvious racist overtones, which is not a very good way to attract black voters.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Postmodern NEO-liberal, Loki , makes a lot of allegations .
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 6:54 PMLOKI POSTED :It's certainly not only modern faux-repub Galters making this kind of glib and baseless noise; those who identify as liberal are at least equally guilty of letting merely spiteful prejudice color their beliefs and words with baseless bigoted associations.
RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that . Because they're not conflicted postmodern quislings NEO-liberals like yourself who do NOT like ideological consistency...or do you have a more specific and plausible criteria , Loki ?
If you do have a more specific and plausible criteria for that statement about spiteful prejudice then present it , please ! -
-
Re: Postmodern NEO-liberal, Loki , makes a lot of allegations .
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 9:16 PMOh brother. Can we have vendettas elsewhere. -
-
Re: Postmodern NEO-liberal, Loki , makes a lot of allegations .
Sat, October 17, 2009 - 12:41 AMAlright Ted, meet you at the Vendetta tribe...
IT'S SO ON!!!
-
Re: Postmodern NEO-liberal, Loki , makes a lot of allegations .
Sat, October 17, 2009 - 10:53 AMIt's NOT about Vendettas. It is a call to accuracy ....
-
-
Re: Postmodern NEO-liberal, Loki , makes a lot of allegations .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 12:11 PM<< If you do have a more specific and plausible criteria for that statement about spiteful prejudice then present it , please ! >>
Why?
I mean, none of the ADULTS are asking for it...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 7:53 AMYes Loki it's true that large catch all labels have their limitations. They also have their virtues.
If one takes overly seriously the proposition you forwarded then any speaker would have to talk about individuals.
Which is not do-able.
Maybe a super computer might be able to do math for all the stars in a galaxy and propose models for how the gravitational tides and mass and solar winds will cause the galaxy to move and change over time the human mind can not. And that's pretty much the sort of thing your proposition requires.
So I will reclaim my generalities and re-affirm their use and applicability.
Christians and Progressives are excellent terms that allow one to get a handle on large concepts and large demographics.
Just because neither move as a monolithic unified whole does not mean they don't share adequate similarities to both justify and necessitate the generalization.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 8:38 AMso... because you cannot personally do the math you feel would be necessary to support your "the progressives" bogeyman, this absolves you from making accurate commentary on things that exist - as opposed to inaccurate commentary on things that do not? Thus it's fine and noble when people observe that "the conservatives" are a pack of uneducated superstitious racist fearmongers that don't actually believe any of the platitudes they belch or practice any of the philosophy they pretend to subscribe to?
Accurate data is there for all those who are motivated to understand it. You may be interested to know that many agencies are interested enough in the data to spend a lot of time collecting it. It's not *too* terribly amazing that few people are interested in data that looks unbiased. Most people believe dumb things and go to great lengths to preserve those beliefs.
I reject your premises pretty easily, P - that there's a binary requiring you to discuss your flaky liberal aunt if you aren't allowed to make specious claims about figments of your imagination, that this binary duality absolves you of dishonesty and justifies your mistakes, that it's 'too complicated' to be responsible with assertions of ostensible fact, that the galaxy of stars is an apt analogy for the complexity of US politics; I certainly laugh away the suggestion that slothful prejudice is justified on the basis that being accurate and careful in accusations of world-dominating supervillainy would be toooo harrrrrd.
It's simple: don't make a habit of saying untrue things. Couch your beliefs in language that isn't dishonest and makes explicit that you are expressing feelings and not reporting facts, and you're golden. Another option would have been to refer to "people who believe X and so" or "people that identify as this or that".
When was the last time you refreshed your memory of what the term "progressive" refers to in political discourse, may I ask?
>> "Just because neither move as a monolithic unified whole does not mean they don't share adequate similarities to both justify and necessitate the generalization."
Totally absurd. "Both" of what? Imaginary blocs? Poppycock. You have been duped. Not only is the generalization not justified in any wise outside of the pandemonium of hooting pundit-gibbons being consistently stupid about basic reality, but it is simply uselessly vague, not supported by any pertinent facts, and easily dismissed. The mere invocation of "neither" and "both" reveals the essential error in your thinking. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 5:35 PMgolly so many rules. . .i remember the good old days when you could just construct a model by rolling up your shirtsleeves, looking around and gluing the pieces together. . . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Thu, October 15, 2009 - 10:33 AMNope; it's supercomputers from here out.
It's because we're all so astronomically complex and inscrutable. COUGH.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 1:34 PM>>don't make a habit of saying untrue things
A good rule, and one that you should try harder to follow yourself. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 1:44 PM>>>>>>>A good rule, and one that you should try harder to follow yourself.
Well I would go farther, he should just try it.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Sat, October 17, 2009 - 6:18 PMHeh! Link me to my prevarications, please, so that I may make amends. -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Sat, October 17, 2009 - 10:54 PMYou might start with the ones in this string. -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Sat, October 17, 2009 - 11:48 PMwhich would be? -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 12:55 PMStart with your claim that I was cherry-picking. What factual evidence do you have for that? -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 5:39 PMFactual evidence that you snagged a an oblique and distantly relevant datum, stated it incorrectly, used it as a justification for your implication that nonwhites of an artificial clade constitute a bloc? In a vacuum that admits no context? Well... there would be.. the fact that you did it...
?
I know it's rough to admit wrongness, F, but the fact is that you made a mistake and spoke from what appears to me to be a habitually racist stance. Most people are guilty of it; it doesn't make you a monster. I have noticed, with some surprise, that you occasionally make prejudiced remarks that lump people together in little groups that you believe you understand. If called on it, you become defensive and nasty. I found it odd as I hadn't seen you as being that kind of voice in the main, and yet, there you have it.
Cop to it or not; it does you no service to invent an issue with my honesty over it. Point me to a lie and I'll cop to it readily.
Better yet, for the sake of decorum, simply go back and read what you were responding to, and explain to me how your post was pertinent. Clearly, either I failed to understand you, or you failed to understand you. If you're not guilty of the charge, you're fine, right? There would be no point in trying to deflect attention by claiming there's a lie somewhere in my criticism of your apparently comfortably prejudiced perspective.
In this case, one can only *assume* the majority of the people you refer to voted on a racist basis, while your remark about the stat tends to offer a bit more credence to that sort of criticism - don't you think? -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 11:31 PMYou are evading the question. In what way was it "cherry picking?" You have some other data you think would be more representative?
So far you have presented no evidence whatever. You plainly know nothing about the subject and simply prefer to call me names. -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 2:26 AM"Evidence" of what, exactly? That "the progressives" is not an organization bent on ... squishing?
And what names did I call you?
Jesus, man, at least hallucinate something crazy and fun. -
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 2:58 AMI was just hopeing to insert a bit of mirth ya Know? Lighten up,, do some yoga
-
Re: Wounded Evildoers Turn Against the Truthsayer
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 7:00 AMLoki own up to your statements. You called Forrest a racist. It in black and white (at least on my screen). So stop being so sanctimonious. For one Forrest is anything but a racist. He has been a voice of reason on this tribe and one with whom you can have a vigorous and logical debate of facts. I know I have done it several time. So get a grip. You have a very bad tendency to act as though you are coming down from high yet with nothing of substance. If you don't have anything to offer this tribe but vitriol then maybe you can find a tribe that you can be productive in. I can help you with that if you need.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 16, 2009 - 1:36 PMIn upstate New York, Dede Scozzafava, 49 years old, is the choice of local party leaders to defend a Republican seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, an abortion-rights candidate who could appeal to independents. Doug Hoffman, 59, is a local accountant backed by tea-party activists who has jumped into the race declaring himself the real conservative.
Mr. Hoffman has siphoned so much support from Ms. Scozzafava that their Democratic rival has vaulted into the lead, according to a poll released Thursday. The election is Nov. 3.
uspolitics.einnews.com/news.php
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 11:55 PMWhy don't we have more claims of "postvarication?" -
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 1:59 AMUrban Dictionary: teabagging- 31 definitions: the insertion of one man's sack into another's mouth,
used as a personal joke or prank, usually used as on someone.....
Just a bit of mirth Men....
NO TEABAGGING HERE,,, Who can name the John Water's Film this is a quote from? -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 7:01 AMJst in case you miss it above.
Loki own up to your statements. You called Forrest a racist. It in black and white (at least on my screen). So stop being so sanctimonious. For one Forrest is anything but a racist. He has been a voice of reason on this tribe and one with whom you can have a vigorous and logical debate of facts. I know I have done it several time. So get a grip. You have a very bad tendency to act as though you are coming down from high yet with nothing of substance. If you don't have anything to offer this tribe but vitriol then maybe you can find a tribe that you can be productive in. I can help you with that if you need. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 1:05 PM"Own up" to them?
Is it your feeling I am somehow reticent to do this?
Boo hoo. Some of you folks sure turn a unusual shade when your own lenses are turned on you. Yes; I did in fact point out that Forrest's remarks are obviously based in habitual racism. So? That you and/or Forrest can't comprehend that such a charge could be made is irrelevant. Take a breath and refute it, or simply ignore it and get back to rationalizing your prejudices. "Get a grip"? Please.
I have not impugned F's ability to debate at all - but I do note it vanishes into dust when he's called on his ignorant prejudices. Are you made of the same fiber? Or can you come up with some defense that isn't fallacious and irrelevant? Perhaps you think it's impossible for Forrest to nurture and protect long-held prejudices, for some reason? Or maybe your endorsement is meant to serve as an argument? Can you provide me with the credentials that he and you have that make somehow preclude such a possibility?
I do like it when you post the material I mention; keep that up. In that way, you can help me with this 'lack of substance' problem while taking it upon yourself to accidentally educate your protectorate. Kudos.
If criticism strikes you as somehow unfair, then by all means, police your pond. You won't be the first or last person to respond to troubling reality checks with peeved acrimony. Or, you could simply face the facts that Forrest, you, and I all have (gasp!) flaws that render us hypocrites on many a matter. Hypocrisy is necessary to any non-insane person's ethical state; otherwise there can be no self-improvement.
By me, though, it's odd that you'd focus this ire on me, out of this gaggle - I suppose I could take it as a compliment, so I will.
Rarrrr! The view from up here is magnificent. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 19, 2009 - 5:06 PMYou're really on thin ice right now. Offer something meaningful to the discussions or leave. -
-
Re: ha!
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 2:57 PMYour choice; B. I don't alter my voice unless you're offering pay. It's not my obligation to research simple facts for you, nor to analyze them in accordance with your belief system/s. If you want a certain kind of text from me, you'll have to make me an offer.
• "Something meaningful". Hm. What does that refer to? A naked link for you to feel bad about? A news story that reaffirms your prejudice? Apology to another respondent? Perusing your stables I find substantial data that suggest you're singling me out. Why would you do that?
It's interesting to me that, in this case, no "something meaningful" in the form of argument or rebuttal is yet forthcoming from you or Forrest - just acrimonious bellyaching and piddlin' threats. This is *really* familiar to me. Most bigots *hate* to be called bigots - but, of course, have no defense for the charge, and so must rely on strident acrimony toward the speaker to assuage their feelings and, in their minds, restore some kind of prestige to themselves in the abstract 'larger community'. Deflection from the observation hasn't worked - so now it's time to silence disagreement? Fire when ready, Gridley. I didn't drop this forum when I left all the other politics fora because there simply didn't used to be this kind of stupidity going on, here. If *the mod* is going to align with a political perspective to the extent of excluding comment on the basis of polemic content, then it is only a service you do me. Have you booted someone whose argument bothered you? I might not have noticed; have you done that before?
Meaning is an attribution. If it's fine for you for people to make bigoted statements on your forum as long as they align with your politics, but intend to castigate someone who calls them out, then there is really nothing lost by you exercising your powers.
You wouldn't be the first nor the last molehill king to respond to me with exclusion; I assure you I haven't a shred of fear over it.
By all means, you can take this opportunity to free yourself up to focus on Jason, here, and his compelling arguments of substance.
End of the day, I'll still do what I do, and Forrest will still do what he does, &c &al, and nothing will change except the post count, minutely. Or who knows? Maybe a huge flood of people that have been staying out in order to be free of my incessant meaningless posts will thunder in and make this page... what, solvent? Enh.
It *is* disappointing, B, that *you* turn out to be one of these. I thought you were sharp and on point. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Loki likes to obsfucate .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:38 PMLOKI POSTED :Meaning is an attribution.
RESPONSE: If you have any evidence to back up the claim that "meaning is an attribution" then it is high time you present it , Loki .
LOKI POSTED : If it's fine for you for people to make bigoted statements on your forum as long as they align with your politics, but intend to castigate someone who calls them out, then there is really nothing lost by you exercising your powers.
RESPONSE : Loki often uses the term 'bigot' in a way that does NOT refer to racism, but, instead, to refer to anyone who REFUSES to become some namby- pamby "conflicted" opinion-respecting relativist . Often in other forums he refers to someone as a "bigot" a person who is NOT a racist , but because they express vehement *disapproval* of puerile , superficial sex kinks that he champions ! -
-
Re: Loki likes to obsfucate .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:47 PM>>>>>>If you have any evidence to back up the claim that "meaning is an attribution" then it is high time you present it , Loki .
He doesn't need to. It is your job to look it up if it is that important to you. If you don't want to look it up, then it wasn't that important to begin with. -
-
Oh great , another Loki groupie
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 2:59 PMTEDSTER POSTED :He doesn't need to. It is your job to look it up if it is that important to you. If you don't want to look it up, then it wasn't that important to begin with.
RESPONSE : The burden of proof is upon the person who makes a positive assertion (unless it is a tautology and what Loki puts forth is not that )and so the burden of proof is ON LOKI , to back up that claim that all meaning is somehow an attribution . -
-
It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 3:11 PMJason, I think you should have your own talk show. Just give you the floor and let you combat the relativist menace and whatnot. You could even have a segment where hypocrites give people advice, sort of like "Dear Abby". The more seriously you take yourself, the better. Oh, and you could even devote a segment to your precious war against Loki and his legions of sex-crazed relativist hipsters... Yes sirree, that would be something to watch... -
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 4:05 PM<<Jason, I think you should have your own talk show>>
Call Faux News, they're about to have a bunch of freetime once Beck goes supernova~
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 6:28 PMYoda ,
My friend Zack who has a graduate certificate from a private radio college and who has done talk radio in Michigan have talked about doing just that .
And yes, i would pour metaphorical kerosene to raise the fire of ANTI-relativist fervor and backlash against liberated sex filth . -
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 9:21 AMBecause freedom is your enemy or something stupid like that, and you're scared of the vagina?
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 12:53 PM"Yoda ,
My friend Zack who has a graduate certificate from a private radio college and who has done talk radio in Michigan have talked about doing just that .
And yes, i would pour metaphorical kerosene to raise the fire of ANTI-relativist fervor and backlash against liberated sex filth ."
I really hope you get your show, Jason. Tribe.net is just too small a venue for your razor-sharp wits, and I think more people out there are being deprived of the Jason Leary perspective.
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 2:11 PM[a graduate certificate from a private radio college ]
That is just so incredibly wrong on so many levels.
This character actually paid money to an 'educational' institution peddling certificates (not even degrees). And from this he expected accredited professional training? What is next? "Hi, I am your neurosurgeon. Here is my graduate certificate from a private brain surgery college."
Moreover, he paid coin of the realm to acquire train for a flagging medium that is on its way to extinction, just like print...
-
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 6:41 PMWill see about that , Billy . -
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 7:36 PM>>>>>>>>> Will see about that , Billy .
Your holding your breath, aren't you. -
-
Re: It's the Jason Leary show!
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 8:12 PMNot actually ,Teddy .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Loki likes to obsfucate .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:48 PMJason believes that it is not possible to be bigoted against homosexuals or bisexuals, and that he can, in fact, make any disparaging, disgusting, vile, hateful comments he likes about these groups of people without being a bigot.
So, you know, keep that in mind while you're reading his lectures on the nature of bigotry. -
-
Re: Loki likes to obsfucate .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:55 PM<So, you know, keep that in mind while you're reading his lectures on the nature of bigotry. >
If gawd wanted jason to like homosexuals gawd would have given him feelings.
-
Re: Loki likes to obsfucate .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:56 PMIts funny how bigoted people really make it a point to say they aren't bigoted.
It also amazes me how many stupid people think that when they use the word obfuscate (and note that Jason misspelled that word) makes them think that they are smart when in fact it means that the lack the mental capacity to understand what a more intelligent person tells them. -
-
Re: Loki likes to obsfucate .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 7:00 PMWe now take you on a journey from the inner mind to the outer limits.
-
-
Enrika misrepresents on behalf of Loki
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 3:05 PMENRIKA POSTED :Jason believes that it is not possible to be bigoted against homosexuals or bisexuals, and that he can, in fact, make any disparaging, disgusting, vile, hateful comments he likes about these groups of people without being a bigot.
RESPONSE: I have *not* been disparaging homosexuals on the message boards .
I support decent humane treatment of homosexuals . Monogamous gay people are not what the ire is directed at .
I have been disparaing bisexuals and the even worse pansexual and bondage crowd . They promote an open ended polymorphous perversity in regard to relationships the disgusting polynadry of tawedry liasons with multiple partners .
Enrika is supporting the hustle of Lokifreign that the puerile , tawdry sex trysts of sex hipsters is some sort of heroic crusade that bears the suffrage of the world . What a "smell of mendacity ", to borrow a phrase from Tennessse Williams ! -
-
Re: Enrika misrepresents on behalf of Loki
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 1:08 AMAh, I see. All right, please allow me to restate:
Jason believes that it is not possible to be bigoted against bisexuals, and that he can, in fact, make any disparaging, disgusting, vile, hateful comments he likes about this group of people without being a bigot.
So, you know, keep that in mind while you're reading his lectures on the nature of bigotry.
(Presumably he considers it marginally acceptable to be gay as long as you don't ever engage in sexual relations, since sex for any purpose other than procreation is evil.) -
-
Re: Enrika misrepresents on behalf of Loki
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 6:08 AM<Presumably he considers it marginally acceptable to be gay as long as you don't ever engage in sexual relations, since sex for any purpose other than procreation is evil.>
Sex for procreation of evil by evil is evil.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 4:20 PMPlease don't expell Loki.
I'll concede he is touchy on race issues, and something of a contradiction. I saw him use a racial insult ("whitey bitch") in the Aunt Bea tribe. Don't know if it was in jest but it offended some person who has since unsubbed. Yet he is quick to take offense on race issues. Yet he is against the gratuitious use of PC complaints about racism, etc., and is not afraid to talk about race. Many contradictions here.
Difficult, yes, but, but ... he also has some insightful comments on race issues and brings a complex perspective to the debate, being of a mixed race himself plus a lot of education and cultural awareness of a number of different cultures.
He's hard to take at times but he adds a unique voice to this or any tribe.
Perhaps this will all blow over.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 7:29 PMJason has been constantly baiting Loki on a couple of other tribes, so if anybody should be axed it shouldn't be Loki.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:19 PMJOSH POSTED : I'll concede he is touchy on race issues, and something of a contradiction. I saw him use a racial insult ("whitey bitch") in the Aunt Bea tribe. Don't know if it was in jest but it offended some person who has since unsubbed. Yet he is quick to take offense on race issues. Yet he is against the gratuitious use of PC complaints about racism, etc., and is not afraid to talk about race. Many contradictions here .
RESPONSE: Loki : the postmdoern relativist hipster, revels in being full of internal contradictions . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 12:14 PM<<< revels in being full of internal contradictions . >>
So?
Btw, keep Loki (and Forrest) both please. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 1:01 PMAnd eject Jason.
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 3:07 PM<<< revels in being full of internal contradictions . >>
ROCK POSTED :So?
RESPONSE: That accptance of internal contradictions is duplicious , epistemically incontinent ---and , hence , evil ! -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 3:14 PM"That accptance of internal contradictions is duplicious , epistemically incontinent ---and , hence , evil !"
Dude, you defend hypocrisy and then call it evil. Classic... -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 6:30 PMYoda,
One has serious doubts that you even know what the word 'hypocracy' means . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 6:47 PM"One has serious doubts that you even know what the word 'hypocracy' means ."
"Hypocracy" is not a word, you schmuck!
Try reading this slowly and carefully, jackass:
From Merriam Webster's 2000 Unabridged Dictionary:
Main Entry:hypocrisy
Pronunciation:h**p*kr*s*, -si sometimes h**-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-es
Etymology:Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, outward show, from hypokrinesthai to answer, play a part on the stage, act, pretend, from hypo- + krinesthai to dispute, krinein to decide, judge * more at CERTAIN
1 : the act or practice of pretending to be what one is not or to have principles or beliefs that one does not have *the passing stranger who took such a vitriolic joy in exposing their pretensions and their hypocrisy Van Wyck Brooks*; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion *may admit that our conventional morality often serves as a cover for hypocrisy and selfishness Lucius Garvin*
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy *the little hypocrisies which are so frequently the rule rather than the exception in human contacts Erle Stanley Gardner*
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 6:50 PMYup, Merriam Webster seems to agree with what I always thought a hypocrite was:
Main Entry:1hypocrite
Pronunciation:*hip**krit, usu -id.+V
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle English ipocrite, from Old French ypocrite, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokrit*s actor on the stage, pretender, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: one who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have; especially : one who falsely assumes an appearance of virtue or religion *I dare swear he is no hypocrite, but prays from his heart Shakespeare* -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 8:06 PMYoda,
If you'd slow down and practice logic for a change, you'd find that I was not defending hypocrisy , in the exchange with Forrest, but instead stating that a particular piece of advice that a hypocrite might give is not invalidated by them being a hypocrite and not practicing the directive that they recommend to others .
Please understand that I was not referring to a hypocrite recommending that someone practice hypocricy itself , but rather a hypocrite recommending that someone practice a directive that they themselves do not practice .
For example, say a man who is a hypocrite advises other married men to not beat their wives but he beats his own wife. Well the content of the advice that person who does not follow the advice he gives is still good advice . The directive that states that a man should NOT beat his wife is not made false simply because a man who doesn't practice what he preaches tells you to not beat your wife ! That still good advice .
The content of a proposition is not invalidaded by the unwillingness of a person who expresses it to practice it .
If a man with lung cancer coughing between words with a cigarette between his lips tells me not to take up smoking cigarettes, that is still good advice , regardless of how that man doesn't practice what he preaches .! It would be idiotic of a person when being told by someone else who is smoking cigarettes that they shouldn't take up smoking , to then say , "well that guy who tells me not to take up smoking is a hypocrite ...he doesn't practice what he preaches so the advice he gives me not to take up smoking is wrong, cause he doesn't practice that advice , so I'm going to take up smoking ." -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 10:25 PM>>>>>>>>>>If you'd slow down and practice logic for a change
You should follow your own advice before giving it to others.
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 12:29 PM<< The content of a proposition is not invalidaded by the unwillingness of a person who expresses it to practice it . >>
It cheapens virtue to be used thus. Anyone NOT a hypocrite would cheerfully admit this. A pious fraud, OTOH, has a racket to work and doesn't wish to be questioned while he's working it.
<<< Please understand that I was not referring to a hypocrite recommending that someone practice hypocricy itself , but rather a hypocrite recommending that someone practice a directive that they themselves do not practice .>>
So, you're for a hypocrisy which isn't REALLY hypocrisy because every one knows good is good and the good man ALWAYS uses protestations of virtue as cover while shoving his snout into other people's business.
By this standard, Richard III and Jimmy Swaggart were princes among men. Very relativist of you.
It sounds to me like you willingly embrace WAY more raging internal contradictions than Loki, chum. -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 7:05 PMThe content of a proposition is not invalidaded by the unwillingness of a person who expresses it to practice it . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :It cheapens virtue to be used thus.
RESPONSE: How?. Aren't you glossing over the difference separating the *content* of the proposition and the *vehicle* of the person who expresses it ?
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Anyone NOT a hypocrite would cheerfully admit this. A pious fraud, OTOH, has a racket to work and doesn't wish to be questioned while he's working it.
RESPONSE: Rockstar , if you would please slow down and read carefully, you'd find that I was NOT stating that I embrace hypocrisy itself as a quality. Instead I was presenting the abstract academic insight that the content of a proposition that someone recommends (such as a pyromaniac recommending others that they not play with matches , or a person with loung cancer recommending others not smoke) ...is not contingent in terms of its truth value by whether the person themselves practices what advice they recommend .
<<< Please understand that I was not referring to a hypocrite recommending that someone practice hypocricy itself , but rather a hypocrite recommending that someone practice a directive that they themselves do not practice .>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :So, you're for a hypocrisy which isn't REALLY hypocrisy because every one knows good is good and the good man ALWAYS uses protestations of virtue as cover while shoving his snout into other people's business.
RESPONSE: Now Rocktar, please try to use careful parsing and exegesis with the text . Try to think in a linear , sequential (aka logical) manner ! Perhaps you consider linear/careful/logical thinking to be no fun , passe and "latrine lawyering" (whatever that refers to) but still you are still obligated to abandon the fast and loose approach and think linear instead .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :By this standard, Richard III and Jimmy Swaggart were princes among men.
RESPONSE: The focus of evaluation with the argument I presented-- as to some advice not being invalidated by whether the person who recommends it themselves fail to practice what they recommend--- was focused *on the propositional content of the advice* . You shift the focus *away from* the *propostional content* and *on to the person*. Tacky and NOT logically persipacious at all: the method of Rockstar here . -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 8:11 PMYay! Jason learned how to spell hypocrisy!
Okay Jason, so hypocrites can still give good advice. That's brilliant. Now fuck off.
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 12:09 AM<< Tacky >>
I don't think I give any fraction of a fuck what some degraded jerk who calls women "dirty sex positive sluts" thinks of me.
<< How?.>>
By dragging what is good into disrepute by having it fall from the lips of a maniac or fool or simpleton.
<< Aren't you glossing over the difference separating the *content* of the proposition and the *vehicle* of the person who expresses it ? >>
All the better to point up the foolishness and villainy of the person mouthing the platitudes.
Again, a hypocrite is kind of an ultimate relativist- making people doubt the True and the Good simply by his own shabby character and deceits.
<< The focus of evaluation with the argument I presented >>
There was no "focus" because you "presented" no "argument." Just your usual bloviating self-justifications and diversions. -
-
False notions of Mr Rockstar .
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 3:23 PM<< Tacky >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :I don't think I give any fraction of a fuck what some degraded jerk who calls women "dirty sex positive sluts" thinks of me.
RESPONSE: But I did *not* call *all* women 'dirty sex positive sluts' --that narrowly referred to the ones who are given to sex positive practices and one night stands , causal sex partners/polyandry . Even in 2009 , there are still good morally upright women of deceny , ladylike women who disapprove of liberated sex which are fine edifying people ---such as the editorial columinst Mrs. Jennifer King a voice of decency in this present dark age--whose article I posted over at Heated Debate . She is a wise woman who denounces liberated sex and you would do well to read the article she wrote and heed what she posts . You are obligated to agree with her , Mr. Rockstar .
<< How?.>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :By dragging what is good into disrepute by having it fall from the lips of a maniac or fool or simpleton.
RESPONSE: If people would be more perspicaious about the philosophical distinction separating the content of what someone says and the personhood of the person saying it, there would be no pereceived disrepute .
<< Aren't you glossing over the difference separating the *content* of the proposition and the *vehicle* of the person who expresses it ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :All the better to point up the foolishness and villainy of the person mouthing the platitudes.
RESPONSE: But glossing over the difference is still wrong !
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Again, a hypocrite is kind of an ultimate relativist- making people doubt the True and the Good simply by his own shabby character and deceits.
RESPONSE: NOT if the persons who oberve the hypocrite do not gloss over the distinction separating the content of what the hypocrite recommends and the vehicle of the personal self of the hypocrite who does not live up to that content . Take for example , a hypocrite who is a pyromaniac and plays around with matches and yet recommends to people that they *not* play with matches . Isn't the content of what that hypocrite recommends (that one should *not* play with matches still good advice to follow ---regardless of whether that hypocrite themselves plays with matches? )
<< The focus of evaluation with the argument I presented >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :There was no "focus" because you "presented" no "argument." Just your usual bloviating self-justifications and diversions.
RESPONSE: Isn't that an ad homenin attack ? -
-
Re: False notions of Mr Rockstar .
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 7:12 PM>>>>>>>>Even in 2009 , there are still good morally upright women of deceny , ladylike women who disapprove of liberated sex which are fine edifying people ---
In other words, you want them to be docile, obedient, and constantly pregnant. And of course, morality would only be under your terms. -
-
Re: False notions of Mr Rockstar .
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 1:03 PMI stated nothing about them being obediant nor costantly pregnanat . -
-
Re: False notions of Mr Rockstar .
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 1:53 PM>>>>>> I stated nothing about them being obediant nor costantly pregnanat .
No but that is clearly what you want. -
-
Re: False notions of Mr Rockstar .
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 6:21 PMTry reading what people actually state, instead of "reading between the lines" with supposition, Ted . -
-
Re: False notions of Mr Rockstar .
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 11:56 PMYou, want me to pretend that you don't have pathologies. Your full of them.
-
-
-
-
-
Re:
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 10:47 PM<< But I did *not* call *all* women 'dirty sex positive sluts' >>
What a trashy alibi.
Anyone who would call even ONE woman that isn't even a pimple on a gentleman's ass, much less any kind of believable advocate for any "return" to any "old fashioned" values, except perhaps those of the cave.
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :By dragging what is good into disrepute by having it fall from the lips of a maniac or fool or simpleton.
RESPONSE: If people would be more perspicaious about the philosophical distinction separating the content of what someone says and the personhood of the person saying it, there would be no pereceived disrepute . >>>
In other words, if everyone would just submit to being conned by any swindler mouthing the True and the Good, we'd all be better intellectuals?
I think the appropriate term here is "bullshit-on-stilts."
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :All the better to point up the foolishness and villainy of the person mouthing the platitudes.
RESPONSE: But glossing over the difference is still wrong ! >>
Too bad for what's left of your argument that didn't happen. Pointing UP the difference is one of the time-honored ways of showing up a fraud. Which I have done and count my work on this thread as done.
<< NOT if the persons who oberve the hypocrite do not gloss over the distinction separating the content of what the hypocrite recommends and the vehicle of the personal self of the hypocrite who does not live up to that content . >>
How is pointing out the ideals you don't follow a repudiation of anything but *you*?
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :There was no "focus" because you "presented" no "argument." Just your usual bloviating self-justifications and diversions.
RESPONSE: Isn't that an ad homenin attack ? >>
Gee-whiz. Maybe you should take your case here-
tribecourt.tribe.net/
Only the smallest of small claims courts will do for THIS offense.... -
-
Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven ones
Thu, October 29, 2009 - 11:57 PMBut I did *not* call *all* women 'dirty sex positive sluts' >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :What a trashy alibi.
RESPONSE: What is trashy is libertine sexuality .The very stuff a number of my friends do NOT want their daughters exposed to .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Anyone who would call even ONE woman that isn't even a pimple on a gentleman's ass, much less any kind of believable advocate for any "return" to any "old fashioned" values, except perhaps those of the cave.
RESPONSE: On the contrary , the refined and very dignified Ms.Jennifer King, in the quite cogent and excellent editorial she wrote righly called the characters on that yuppie trash show called 'Sex in The City' ...sluts in the city and kudos for her for defending decency and righly chastising the vulgar , sex positive movement . Wise upright women like Miss King , champion ladylike women , instead of sex positive ones .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :By dragging what is good into disrepute by having it fall from the lips of a maniac or fool or simpleton.
RESPONSE: If people would be more perspicaious about the philosophical distinction separating the content of what someone says and the personhood of the person saying it, there would be no pereceived disrepute . >>>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :In other words, if everyone would just submit to being conned by any swindler mouthing the True and the Good, we'd all be better intellectuals?
RESPONSE: No, again , if people would keep in mind the academic distinction separating the validity of a given message and the personal failings of the messenger , then we would be better intellectuals . A distinction you gloss over .
ROCKSTAR POSTED :I think the appropriate term here is "bullshit-on-stilts."
RESPONSE: No, a better turn of phrase would be a crock of steaming Truth !
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :All the better to point up the foolishness and villainy of the person mouthing the platitudes.
RESPONSE: But glossing over the difference is still wrong ! >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Too bad for what's left of your argument that didn't happen. Pointing UP the difference is one of the time-honored ways of showing up a fraud. Which I have done and count my work on this thread as done.
RESPONSE: How is glossing over the difference "pointing it up" , Mr.Rock and Roll ?
<< NOT if the persons who oberve the hypocrite do not gloss over the distinction separating the content of what the hypocrite recommends and the vehicle of the personal self of the hypocrite who does not live up to that content . >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :How is pointing out the ideals you don't follow a repudiation of anything but *you*?
RESPONSE: First of all, I was not referencing myself as being unwilling to follow ideals . Rather I was making an academic asbtract point about the folly of people coming to the weird conclusion that if someone does not follow the ideals they advise others to follow (in the advice they give to others) that somehow invalidates the ideals . It does not . It may show the person to be invalid , but not the ideals .
<< ROCKSTAR POSTED :There was no "focus" because you "presented" no "argument." Just your usual bloviating self-justifications and diversions.
RESPONSE: Isn't that an ad homenin attack ? >>
ROCKSTAR POSTED :Gee-whiz. Maybe you should take your case here-
tribecourt.tribe.net/
Only the smallest of small claims courts will do for THIS offense....
RESPONSE: Wit and panache are NO substitute for substantial argument , Mr.Rockstar . -
-
Re: Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven o
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 3:00 AMDoes anyone else see the irony of Jason defending his position as cogent on a thread that's supposed to be about Teabaggers?
I'm betting even the Dick Cheney/Dick Armey core of the Republican Jihad wouldn't touch this one and his philosophy of intolerance! -
-
Re: Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven o
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 9:35 AMCertainly I don't count Dick Cheney or the conservative crowd as allies. They are shills for the consumerist , pro-corporate state of affairs that promotes liberated sex and other soulless, vapid phenomonon . -
-
Re: Jason o is into bondage, oh yeah, whip me, baby, spank my ass, big boy, hang me like christ, make me squirt that holy water
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 1:43 PMliberated sex is bad? so you're into handcuffs and ropes and stuff? -
-
Bondage is liberated trash .
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 6:03 PMBondage is liberated trash . It liberates the libido, while binding the limbs and stunting the mind . -
-
Re: Bondage is liberated trash .
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 6:07 PMThis thread has gone far a'field. It should be sent to the glue factory. Knock the soapbox out from under Jason's empty-headed soapbox, dig it...
-
-
-
Re: Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven o
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:39 PMJason, really, Conservatives promote liberated sex? One of the things that drove me away from the Republican Party long ago was their uptight, overly christian views. -
-
Re: Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven o
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 8:05 PMLESTER POSTED :Jason, really, Conservatives promote liberated sex? One of the things that drove me away from the Republican Party long ago was their uptight, overly christian views.
REESPONSE: Unfortunately, many do . For example, I recall a press conference with ANN COULTER, where she mentioned how that many of her associates in the conservative movement were pro-sex . -
-
Re: Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven o
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:04 PMPro sex. As opposed to promoting liberated sex. I guess if we all became anti-sex, all the world's problems would go away in a few generations, wouldn't they? Contrary to the opinions of many religious people, sex is a natural thing, and pleasurable. Maybe if just the people who rail against it would stop doing it, then they would die off and the rest of us could get on with life. -
-
Re: Rockstar rocks on with supercillous remarks LACKING in persipacity. Thank God for refined women like editorial columinst Jennifer King ! There are ladylike women who righly deride the sex driven o
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 9:32 PMLESTER POSTED :Pro sex. As opposed to promoting liberated sex. I guess if we all became anti-sex, all the world's problems would go away in a few generations, wouldn't they? Contrary to the opinions of many religious people, sex is a natural thing, and pleasurable. Maybe if just the people who rail against it would stop doing it, then they would die off and the rest of us could get on with life.
RESPONSE: Say , it ain't so Joe, say it ain't so!. I was hoping that you , Lester would be anti-sex.
The main objection I have with that scurrilous creep Loki is that he favors liberated sex, including monsterous practices like felleatio and sadomaschostic bondage and also that he is a relativist. It is postmodernist/ relativist types like Loki that hurt progressive causes by infilatrating them .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 2:16 PM["Hypocracy" is not a word, you schmuck! ]
No, Yoda. Actually Hypocracy is real: It's a nation like the U.S. that is ruled by public relations men and spin doctors . . .
Usually it is spelled Hypeocracy, though.
Although I am not really sure Jason meant it in that sense. Actually, I am never really sure what he is talking about, period.
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 2:17 PMBut I am delighted his buddy, Zack, paid for a graduate certificate in radio. We can always use another bloviating dipshit on the air waves.... -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 6:43 PMDon't call my best friend that , mister .
Where the heck do you get off inuslting Zack ?
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 7:35 PM[Where the heck do you get off inuslting Zack ? ]
Was that was I was doing? I didn't know I was capable of it. In fact, I am not even sure what "inuslting" is. I can't seem to find it in any of my dictionaries... -
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 8:11 PMAllright, I misspelled .
The word is insulting . Do NOT insult, Zack , Billy .
STRAIGHTEN UP AND FLY RIGHT !
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 2:39 PM>>>•With reference to the original question here is my suggestion for a new word: "hypeocracy", the collective body of those whose privileged position is dependent on hype, exponents of celebrity culture. Beerocracy, mobocracy, snobocracy etc. have made it into the OED and I can?t see why hypeocracy shouldn?t. Just depends how many people read this and start using it. While we are at it here?s another one: to "enquerie", the act of writing to Notes and Queries.
Thomas Eisl, London <<<
www.guardian.co.uk/notesand...7,00.html
Got it, thanks for the brainfood!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 7:10 PM>>>>>>>> NO TEABAGGING HERE,,, Who can name the John Water's Film this is a quote from?
Pecker
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 10:21 AMHoffman plays on several levels. He's avowedly conservative down the line: no to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to tax hikes, yes to strong defense, no on the stimulus bill, no to cap and trade. But importantly, for these times, he's populist: he gives a big, loud "no" to bank bailouts.
So -- he's running as Howard Dean ran when Democrats were the out-party and when activists believed that Democratic congressional leaders capitulated all too quickly to the Republican Party. Dean, you'll recall, famously began an early campaign speech by insisting he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Hoffman doesn't have the luxury of running as a Republican, but his appeal is similar in kind: he's running against Republicans who are Democratic-lite. Scozzafava has been endorsed by the inside-the-beltway crowd, which is one reason why conservatives upset with the National Republican Congressional Committee's choices are flocking to Hoffman.
In that way, he fulfills a fantasy of those activists who believe that the real problem with Republicans is that they sacrifice principals for expediency. If only Republicans would act like true conservatives and proclaim their conservatism loudly and proudly -- they'd win. And -- and -- this is a district in New York State, not the South.
politics.theatlantic.com/2009/...li.php
Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities, according to interviews with GOP officials and operatives.
Congressional leaders talk in private of being boxed in by commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — figures who are wildly popular with the conservative base but wildly controversial among other parts of the electorate, and who have proven records of making life miserable for senators and House members critical of their views or influence.
Some of the leading 2012 candidates are described by operatives as grappling with the same tension. The challenge is to tap into the richest source of energy in the party — the disgust of grass-roots conservative activists with President Barack Obama and their hunger for a full-throated attack on his agenda — without coming off to the broader public as cranky and extreme.
www.politico.com/news/stor...28589.html
It demonstrates just how right-wing some Republicans have become that former House speaker Newt Gingrich is on the moderate side of this civil war against his old nemesis Dick Armey, who served under Gingrich as majority leader.
Gingrich, who backs Scozzafava, always understood that he would never have become speaker without help from Republican moderates. Armey prefers ideological purity and, like fellow members of the Tea Party movement, is supporting Hoffman.
The GOP's battle of Plattsburgh and Oswego underscores the fact that while the Democrats are a coalition party uniting moderates and liberals, Republicans threaten to become a party of the right, and only of the right. That means (as we are seeing on health care) that many of the big arguments take place almost entirely inside the Democratic Party.
www.tnr.com/article/politics/who-us
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 12:38 PMAlbert Hoffmann si. . .Doug Hoffman no. .
-
-
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, October 26, 2009 - 9:06 PMI’m hearing — though the players have not yet responded to my questions — that there’s some serious friction between one of the main organizations of the Tea Party movement and one of the late-comers. The main organization is Tea Party Patriots, the genuine grassroots group (with some marginal ties to FreedomWorks et al.) launched in February, after Rick Santelli’s CNBC “rant.” The late-comer is the Tea Party Express, the offshoot of the conservative, GOP-centric Our Country Deserves Better PAC.
The discord begins with Our Country Deserve Better PAC’s co-opting of the Tea Party brand — it got Fox News pseudo-journalist Griff Jenkins to ride along on its cross-country express — to push a personality-driven Republican message. Some long-time Tea Party Patriots are unhappy with Mark Williams, the radio host who serves as vice chairman of OCDBPAC, and who has said inflammatory things about Democrats and President Obama in national TV appearances. Amy Kremer, the national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, is being nudged out because of her participation in the latest and forthcoming Tea Party Express tours.
washingtonindependent.com/61769...arties
I reported yesterday that there was some friction between the Tea Party Patriots and Our Country Deserves Better PAC, the organization that launched the Tea Party Express. Today, I confirmed that the discord is real, and that Amy Kremer, formerly a national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, was pushed out last week because of her decision to join the upcoming Tea Party Express tour.
“As an organization, we do our best to be completely nonpartisan,” said Mark Meckler, a national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots. “That’s one of things that’s allowed us to survive when we were called Republican tools. Tea Party Patriots are very dissatisfied with the Republican Party — we have nothing against Our Country Deserves Better PAC, but they raise money for Republicans.”
Meckler did say that the antics of Mark Williams, the former radio host who has become a spokesman for Tea Party Express — and is often identified as a “Tea Party leader” because of this — played a role in the pushback.
washingtonindependent.com/62054...xpress
Tea Party Patriots did not want to lose Amy Kremer. The Atlanta activist had co-founded the organization. She’d helped organize some of the biggest events in the nationwide Tea Party movement. Then, at the end of September, Kremer decided to join the Tea Party Express, a project of the conservative Our Country Deserves Better PAC that was embarking on its third cross-country round of anti-tax, anti-spending rallies.
This wasn’t going to work for Tea Party Patriots. As several leaders in the group told TWI, they stressed to Kremer that Our Country Deserves Better was a partisan-leaning PAC that rushed to the aid of Republican candidates; working with them could imperil the tax status of non-profit Tea Party Patriots. Other leaders argued that Mark Williams, the vice chairman of Our Country Deserves Better, was a firebrand whose rhetoric made the rest of the movement look bad. In May, Kremer had told Newsmax.com that the movement was being “hijacked” by Republican operatives, with the biggest offenders being the Republican Governor’s Association. Kremer did not respond to multiple requests for comment from TWI.
washingtonindependent.com/63299...xpress
Money talks, and "patriots" walk. . .
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, October 27, 2009 - 2:18 PMThe day after meeting the Tea Party activists, Gingrich appeared on C-Span and announced, in a roundabout way, that he would consider a 2012 presidential bid. But as far as voters like Lisa Miller are concerned–and they’re echoed by some established Republican strategists–Gingrich has done serious damage to his credibility among the people who’ll choose the next Republican presidential nominee. Conservatives and libertarians who’d already doubted Gingrich have used the Scozzafava endorsement as a cudgel, a way to emphasize their own concerns.
“Newt’s hurt himself a little bit,” said David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union and a pol with experience in intra-Republican squabbles that dates back to the Ronald Reagan-Gerald Ford primary battle of 1976. “It’s obviously not fatal, but if you go with the establishment all of the time, people assume that you’re part of the establishment. And that’s not a good place to be.”
Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist who is working on Hoffman’s media outreach, called Gingrich a “friend” and would not disparage his decision. But he warned that “conservatives are going to point the finger at the NRCC and the Republican establishment for running hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads attacking Doug Hoffman.”
washingtonindependent.com/65261...dreams
Tea Baggers 1, Newt 0
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 10:45 AMWhat is different is that the Republican Party, and the Republican establishment, has kind of invested so much energy and so much passion and so much sincerity in the idea that conservatism is the name for everything good in politics, and compromise is the name for everything bad in politics, that they've kind of created this Frankenstein monster. During the Reagan years, you had pretty strong leadership at the top, once again, drawing the boundaries, and doing things like massaging the concerns of a very passionate base, but [the party didn't let] the tail wag the dog. I mean, I think of Ronald Reagan only giving video messages to pro-life rallies, instead of showing up in person. But there's this insurgent energy that the Republican Party kind of needs to keep going -- and without this constituency, there is no Republican Party, let's face it.
salon.com/news/politics...rty/index.html
Through endless repetition, the rhetoric became policy, and the "fringe" became the Republican mainstream:
What I think is the real fundamental difference here with what we're seeing in the conservative movement today, and what we saw with the Democratic Party and the progressive wing even a few years ago, is the centrality of Fox News to all of this. When we spoke with these conservative Republicans in the focus groups we did for Democracy Corps recently, what was really striking was we asked them specifically, who is the leader of the Republican Party, who speaks for the Republican Party today? And none of them in the groups we did named a single elected official. They didn't name George W. Bush, they didn't look to past presidencies the way Democrats did when Bush was in the White House and they looked back to Clinton-Gore and those times. Who they named was Fox News. Who they named was Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh. Those are the people who speak for the Republican Party in the minds of the conservative base voters that we're talking about. So the centrality of -- first of all, a media entity, not a partisan or ideological entity, but a media entity. And second of all, the fact that it's so large, and so organized.
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 9:11 PMThe moderate Republican nominee for a vacant U.S. House seat here unexpectedly withdrew from the race Saturday, bowing to a revolt led by conservative activists that badly split the national GOP leadership and is likely to influence the shape of the party heading into next year's midterm elections.
With campaign funds drying up and support in public polls eroding significantly, Dede Scozzafava suspended her campaign three days before Tuesday's special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Her move paves the way for a more conservative third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, in his effort to deny Democrats a seat that has been in the Republican column for more than a century.
Scozzafava's sudden departure represented a clear victory for the right flank of a fractured Republican Party that is trying to rebuild itself nationally after consecutive losses in 2006 and 2008 left the White House and both branches of Congress in Democratic hands.
The sudden turn of events in this Upstate New York district sends a signal to Republican candidates across the country that the populist forces are prepared to exercise their muscle against GOP candidates they regard as insufficiently conservative.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...19.html
Teabaggers 2, Newt 0
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 11:04 AMNewt Gingrich, who had previously endorsed moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election, now says he is "deeply upset" about her endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens after she withdrew from the race.
"How could she have accepted all that support?" said Gingrich, also adding: "I'm very, very let down because she told everybody she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican."
Gingrich had caught a lot of criticism on the right for supporting Scozzafava, and arguing that the Republican Party needs to have room for moderates. Now that Scozzafava has quit the race and endorsed the Democrat, due to campaign by the right to push her out in favor of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, Gingrich will certainly have to work hard to undo the damage from his having bet on the wrong horse.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009...r.php
Poor Newt, he obviously doesn't understand that the party doesn't belong to him anymore . . .
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 4:46 PMThis is starting to remind me a lot of 1964. For those too young to remember:
The Republican National Convention of 1964 was a tension-filled contest. Goldwater's conservatives were openly clashing with Rockefeller's moderates. Goldwater was regarded as the "conservatives' leading spokesman." As a result, Goldwater was not as popular with the moderates and liberals of the Republican party. When Rockefeller attempted to deliver a speech, he was booed by the convention's conservative delegates, who regarded him as a member of the "eastern liberal establishment." Despite the infighting, Goldwater was easily nominated. He chose William E. Miller, a Congressman from New York, as his running mate. In his acceptance speech, he declared communism as a "principal disturber of the peace in the world today" and said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Some people, including those within his own campaign staff, believed this weakened Goldwater's chances, as he effectively severed ties with the moderates and liberals of the Republican Party.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964...Convention
Goldwater's tone reflected the tenor of this ugliest of Republican conventions since 1912, as entrenched moderates faced off against conservative insurgents. In an era in which a national consensus seemed to have coalesced around advancing civil rights, containing Communism and expanding government, the moderates believed they had to win to preserve the Republican Party. The conservatives—who wanted to contain the role of the federal government and roll back Communism—believed they were saving not just the party but Western civilization.
www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...on.html
The victory of Lyndon Johnson was one of the great landslides of the twentieth century. Johnson won a stunning majority in the electoral college, and his popular vote margin was nearly a postwar record. Moreover, Goldwater's name at the top of the ticket was poisonous for a number of congressional Republican incumbents and statewide officeholders. The devastation was nearly complete.
www.archives.gov/publicati...ash-2.html
Extremism in the defense of liberty may not be a vice, but it is no way to win elections . . .
-
Re: Tea Baggers Turn Against GOP
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 10:14 PMDemocrat wins upstate New York congressional race
For the first time since the Civil War era, New York's 23rd Congressional District has a Democratic representative, CNN projects.
Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in a race that became a flashpoint in the battle for control of the national Republican Party.
Prominent conservative Republicans like Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty backed Hoffman while others like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sided with Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, who exited the race Saturday and through her support behind the Democrat Owens. National conservatives had complained that Scozzafava wasn't far enough to the right on issues like abortion.
blog.seattlepi.com/seattlep...84028.asp
This is what usually happens when you split the party, the other guys win . . .
