[ManifestDestiny]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

romanP romanP:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

belittle and dehumanise that which you do not understand

you said it yourself!

I didn't write that because I advocate doing it. I wrote that as a matter of pointing out the intellectual inadequacies of the willfully ignorant. Attempt to talk to any bigot about any subject in a rational manner, and that is the response you can expect: belittling and dehumanisation of that which it does not understand.

Are you implying that you yourself are willfully ignorant and a bigot?

I am glad you saw it also! never under estimate the power of denial there RomanP

[Thanos]

Sorry guys, but you're not going to win this one. Limbaugh is nothing but an obscene carnival barker and anyone with half a brain can see right through him. The era of pat answers provided by clowns like Limbaugh, "answers" by the way which are specifically designed just to get simpletons riled up over complicated issues, is now over.

[Scape]

What of Rohm's charge that Rush was the defacto head of the GOP? With Steele on bended knee publicly the GOP has made Emanuel's point plain. Steele is now Rush's butt boy now because his leadership has been publicly emasculated. He has no credibility.

video of the GOP Butt boy

[romanP]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

romanP romanP:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

belittle and dehumanise that which you do not understand

you said it yourself!

I didn't write that because I advocate doing it. I wrote that as a matter of pointing out the intellectual inadequacies of the willfully ignorant. Attempt to talk to any bigot about any subject in a rational manner, and that is the response you can expect: belittling and dehumanisation of that which it does not understand.

Are you implying that you yourself are willfully ignorant and a bigot?

Why would you say that?

[Axeman]

Thanos Thanos:

Sorry guys, but you're not going to win this one. Limbaugh is nothing but an obscene carnival barker and anyone with half a brain can see right through him. The era of pat answers provided by clowns like Limbaugh, "answers" by the way which are specifically designed just to get simpletons riled up over complicated issues, is now over.

Exactly. His "recruitment" practices sniff an aweful lot like those the Nazis, KKK and other white supremicist groups, cults and their ilk. You begin by creating "us" and "them" and follow up with the snake-oil schpeel.

[romanP]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

romanP romanP:

I didn't write that because I advocate doing it. I wrote that as a matter of pointing out the intellectual inadequacies of the willfully ignorant. Attempt to talk to any bigot about any subject in a rational manner, and that is the response you can expect: belittling and dehumanisation of that which it does not understand.

Are you implying that you yourself are willfully ignorant and a bigot?

I am glad you saw it also! never under estimate the power of denial there RomanP

What is it that you see, and what is it that you think I am denying?

[BartSimpson]

Axeman Axeman:

Republican popularity is already strongly in decline in the wake of Bush, Chaney and other ultra-right nuts' influence. The LAST thing the Republicans need is to have MORE fascists lining up to marginalize the party. This sort of trend, if it continues, ought to ensure another round of Obamamania in 2012.

The GOP is in decline not because of any ultra-right people (outside of Tom Tancredo we have none) but because the GOP has been so moderate and milquetoast that hardcore conservatives like myself haven't been all too excited about them anymore. The current GOP leadership thinks they need to be more like the Democrats in order to win elections but they can't see that the country does not need two left-leaning Democrat parties.

We'll just vote Democrat if we want a Democrat.

The GOP needs to get back to the conservative base or just pack it in and get the hell out of the way for a new conservative party. And a lot of us are looking for a new party to replace the GOP. We're sick of the detestable old boy's club that makes jackass old farts like John McCain and Bob Dole the candidate every few years.

[Scape]

So you end up with firebrands and snake oil salesmen like Rove, Coulter, O'Reilly and Rush. I hear what you are saying Bart but that's out of the frying pan in to the fire like thinking.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

So you end up with firebrands and snake oil salesmen like Rove, Coulter, O'Reilly and Rush. I hear what you are saying Bart but that's out of the frying pan in to the fire like thinking.

No offense, but people like youself said the same things about Reagan in 1976 and Ford got renominated only to lose to Jimmy Carter.

When the party hacks finally stepped aside Reagan won in 1980.

Then when Gingrich came up with the Contract With America in 1994 he was similarly denounced for being too far to the right yet he was right and the GOP swept to control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

The problem with the GOP is that they spend far too much time listening to people like yourself who'd NEVER vote for the GOP and not enough time listening to people like myself who actually donate money and time to support good candidates.

The net result of this is that the GOP is not in control of much of anything any more.

Ironically, the ultimate result will be people like me going off to join a new conservative party and we'll just abandon the GOP.

I have more than a few people asking me to run for Congress in 2010 and, trust me, if I get into Congress I will make Rove, Coulter, O'Reilly and Rush look like liberals.

Chances are, I won't be running GOP if I run.

For that matter, we have 22 states (not all of them conservative, mind you) with sovereignty resolutions going on (Oklahoma recently passed theirs) and we have a liberal New York Senator, Charles Schumer, hinting that the Federal Government will use force to make states comply with the Obama 'stimulus' bill and there now stands the very real possibility that the USA may actually fragment in the next year.

If the GOP can't get in front of the movement against the power Obama is trying to assert it will certainly mean the end of the GOP and maybe even the end of the USA as we know it.

Some people, like myself, will not barter away or negotiate away principles we hold dear.

This post really should be a lot longer, but I'm trusting you to graps what I'm saying here in that we are up against rough times and if the GOP softens or moderates any further it will only exacerbate what is becoming a serious problem.

[Scape]

In 1976 what is happening now to the GOP was then happening to the Democrats. They lost and Regan won back to back elections while they tried to get back on message. The problem with them at that point was the radicals hijacked the message and made the party unpalatable to the people. They found out, after back to back defeats, the solution wasn't to become more radical it was holding the radicals to account.

The people demand government, not people that run on government is the problem and once elected then become the problem. Rampant deregulation has put America in the most perilous position it has been in since inception and people like Rush and Rove can try all day with wool but the fact remains for all to see this was a dismal failure. Changing the name and divorcing yourself from the brand while still holding onto the same bankrupt ideals isn't fooling anyone.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Sorry guys, but you're not going to win this one. Limbaugh is nothing but an obscene carnival barker and anyone with half a brain can see right through him. The era of pat answers provided by clowns like Limbaugh, "answers" by the way which are specifically designed just to get simpletons riled up over complicated issues, is now over.

Yeah that's pretty much my take. Not to mention Limbaugh's quite the card-carrying socialist himself. He's all in favour of legislating morality and unconstitutional invasions of other countries that empty the treasury. He's stated many times int he past he is more than happy to hand over all powers to the government and relinquish all his rights and the most minor perceived threat to his safety.

[fifeboy]

Axeman Axeman:

Explain to me how and when "it worked"?

Spend, spend, spend on things that nobody will complain about, like the military (ICBM's, Star Wars, defensive missile shields), war on durgs, border security and a patriotic war. At the same time you cut taxes, deeply and train people that "it's your money, you know how best to spend it." You make credit cheap, too cheap and people become indebted to the point they can't get out. Then you say: "we must cut the fat from our budget, things like social programs, education, health, environment because they have made us a debtor nation that can't afford these extravagances any more."

That is the plan, it's worked in the past and I bet it works again.

[Axeman]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Axeman Axeman:

Explain to me how and when "it worked"?

Spend, spend, spend on things that nobody will complain about, like the military (ICBM's, Star Wars, defensive missile shields), war on durgs, border security and a patriotic war. At the same time you cut taxes, deeply and train people that "it's your money, you know how best to spend it." You make credit cheap, too cheap and people become indebted to the point they can't get out. Then you say: "we must cut the fat from our budget, things like social programs, education, health, environment because they have made us a debtor nation that can't afford these extravagances any more."

That is the plan, it's worked in the past and I bet it works again.

Well, the original claim was about tax cuts ending the 1980 recession, which is bunk. Tax rates were cut for the RICHEST Americans. Top level rates were cut from around 85% to 30% for the most wealthy. But before the cuts, there were so many deductions that the richest bracket usually paid NOTHING. Therefore, Reagans so-called tax cuts actually resulted in increases in tax revenues. In any case, the '80 recession was created and cured by monetary policy as a Reaganomics test of Friedman's theories. It was not a cyclical recession.

As for it "working in the past", that's not always true. "New Deal" Government spending in the 1930s made the situation much worse and turned what MAY have been a minor recession into a massive depression. We shall see what this round of government waste brings us.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

In 1976 what is happening now to the GOP was then happening to the Democrats. They lost and Regan won back to back elections while they tried to get back on message. The problem with them at that point was the radicals hijacked the message and made the party unpalatable to the people. They found out, after back to back defeats, the solution wasn't to become more radical it was holding the radicals to account.

The people demand government, not people that run on government is the problem and once elected then become the problem. Rampant deregulation has put America in the most perilous position it has been in since inception and people like Rush and Rove can try all day with wool but the fact remains for all to see this was a dismal failure. Changing the name and divorcing yourself from the brand while still holding onto the same bankrupt ideals isn't fooling anyone.

Actually, what we've seen is the fallout of well-meaning regulations that were turned on their head by greedy, self-serving pricks from Wall Street.

De-regulation, oddly, would've restored the accountability the banks used to have for their lending practices.

The fault of the Bush Admin and the neo-cons is that they did not undo the CRA because too many of their cronies on Wall Street were making bundles off the fallout from it.

And, so far, no one is proposing to undo the CRA so the root cause of the problem is still in place: the banks are still required to make bad loans to people with sub-par collateral and with less-than stellar credit.

[Pseudonym]

romanP romanP:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

romanP romanP:

I didn't write that because I advocate doing it. I wrote that as a matter of pointing out the intellectual inadequacies of the willfully ignorant. Attempt to talk to any bigot about any subject in a rational manner, and that is the response you can expect: belittling and dehumanisation of that which it does not understand.

Are you implying that you yourself are willfully ignorant and a bigot?

Why would you say that?

You questioned the humanity (i.e. dehumanized) the individual who wrote the page that I posted for our collective amusement. It's a fairly clear connection.