Random Political Thoughts

[Lunger]

The problem is religious extremism IMO. But that just underlies the failings of humanity, I guess, when you can take functioning democracies and plunge then into the dark ages with nothing more than poetic word salad. I don't think that's something that's fixable.

What?

[Yorkshire pud]

What?

I think he was generalising; not answering Sardondi's point specifically re: Chicago. At least that's how it seemed to me. 

[FightTheFuture]

The problem is religious extremism IMO. But that just underlies the failings of humanity, I guess, when you can take functioning democracies and plunge then into the dark ages with nothing more than poetic word salad. I don't think that's something that's fixable.

The reason there are so many young black men shooting other young black men, is...because of...religious extremism? 


I would  love to hear how you came about that conclusion!

[Lunger]

I think he was generalising; not answering Sardondi's point specifically re: Chicago. At least that's how it seemed to me. 

Mmmm...  nah.  Its just a stupid point.

[analog kid]

I think he was generalising; not answering Sardondi's point specifically re: Chicago. At least that's how it seemed to me. 

The reason there are so many young black men shooting other young black men, is...because of...religious extremism? 


I would  love to hear how you came about that conclusion!

Mmmm...  nah.  Its just a stupid point.

Drunkenly off subject, think Boston bombers for some reason. Apologies.

[onan]

I thought this was interesting.


http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/conservative-talk-show-hosts-are-killing-conservatism/

[Yorkshire pud]

I thought this was interesting.


http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/conservative-talk-show-hosts-are-killing-conservatism/

Yeah especially the comments underneath the article. Barely disguised hostility in some of them. One of whom does the typical; me/them, right/ wrong thing. No half way house. All "progressives do x y and x... and it's all bad, without exception" mind set.


Our political system is screwed up in many ways in the UK, and I'm dead against the press having the influence they do come election time (It goes from inform to choose). But to imagine that a shock jock is influencing elections is scary with no balance.

[PB the Deplorable]

I thought this was interesting...

Thanks for posting that, he makes some good points.  Especially the one about sticking with people that are poor candidates despite their conservatism.  About wars - the conservatives are always going to support the troops once they are placed in harms way, regardless of what they think of that particular war, so there might be some confusion about that.

The quibbles I'd have are 1) sure these guys could do a better job of attracting people to their point of view, but they aren't the problem in our body politic or even in the R party, 2) they are part of the Media, but as commentators who are supposed to interject opinion and not as journalists who aren't, and 3) they disagree with other Rs more than they are given credit for  - for example Bush and his spending that was mentioned in the piece. 

And of course they go for ratings - that's what keeps them on the air, and what their pay is based on.  I don't think they are saying much if anything they don't believe.


I like Rush but rarely get a chance to listen, don't like Hannity all that much and have never watched his TV show, have never listened or watched Beck.  There are a few others I've listened to from time to time, but unless someone is in their car all day, who has time to tune in that much.

... But to imagine that a shock jock is influencing elections is scary with no balance.

Rush and the others ARE the balance.  Surely you've noticed the rest of the media march in lockstep with the Ds.

[Yorkshire pud]

Thanks for posting that, he makes some good points.  Especially the one about sticking with people that are poor candidates despite their conservatism.  About wars - the conservatives are always going to support the troops once they are placed in harms way, regardless of what they think of that particular war, so there might be some confusion about that.

I think you'll find that conservatives don't have the monopoly when it comes to supporting troops. After all, it's the lower classes who fight the bloody things and especially in the USA deliberately targeted in recruitment. . A case in point, being Churchill was voted out the first general election after WW2, to be replaced by Clement Attlee.

 

Rush and the others ARE the balance.  Surely you've noticed the rest of the media march in lockstep with the Ds.

Not within themselves. The first part of identifying a problem (and this goes for every political movement-i'm not singling out rep or dems) is to admit it exists, and acknowledge that for the finger pointing forward, there are three pointing back. It's easy to point out that 'the other lot' are wrong, but more noble and productive to sort your own shit first.

[PB the Deplorable]

I think you'll find that conservatives don't have the monopoly when it comes to supporting troops...

Not saying that at all.  But somehow people get the idea sometimes that just because the conservatives aren't out burning flags and spitting on troops that translates into being warmongers and supporting whichever current war (and gee, who would people get that idea from?).  They may or may not be in favor of a given war, but they always want the troops to be respected - and supported by the politicians that sent them, have the supplies and equipment to do the job and be as safe as possible, have intelligent rules of engagement, and - as long as they've been sent there anyway - get the job done.

... Not within themselves. The first part of identifying a problem (and this goes for every political movement-i'm not singling out rep or dems) is to admit it exists, and acknowledge that for the finger pointing forward, there are three pointing back. It's easy to point out that 'the other lot' are wrong, but more noble and productive to sort your own shit first.

Since the Left has led the way with smears, name calling, and lies over the past several decades, maybe they should show the way with self criticism and 'sorting out their own shit first'.

[Yorkshire pud]

Since the Left has led the way with smears, name calling, and lies over the past several decades, maybe they should show the way with self criticism and 'sorting out their own shit first'.

Yeah? I won't list it, but look at the Thatcher government from 79 to when she was usurped by her own cabinet. When it comes to lies and fabricating an agenda for the press to run with demonising the non believers, she had it in spades. The current Government is doing similar, looking for scapegoats. Bliar is simply a crook, a poodle when Bush was President; and now he's just exploiting the shit he helped design..

[PB the Deplorable]

Yeah? I won't list it, but look at the Thatcher government from 79 to when she was usurped by her own cabinet. When it comes to lies and fabricating an agenda for the press to run with demonising the non believers, she had it in spades. The current Government is doing similar, looking for scapegoats. Bliar is simply a crook, a poodle when Bush was President; and now he's just exploiting the shit he helped design..

Hmmm, well ok, I didn't really think it would start here.

I will admit to not really knowing as much about what went on over there domestically during the Thatcher years. 

Over here Reagan inherited a big mess as far as the economy, and endured a great deal of criticism from the very people who enacted those same disastrous policies while he was turning it around - Jimmy Carter is still bitter about being fired, and to this day tries to get his pathetic licks in.  Our foreign policy was a shambles as well.  The Left in general came so close to ruining our country then, they never did quite forgive Reagan for getting us back on track.

Oh the parallels.

I imagine it was much the same in the UK under Thatcher.  It sure sounded the same from here - inheriting and turning around a nearly ruined economy, partnering with RR to try and contain the Soviets.  I don't remember either of them needing to lie and smear - I do remember the extent the Left went to demonize the both of them.  I'm pretty sure all those angry screechy 'demonstrators' who did as they always do ending their bratty little shows by burning, looting, and attacking the police weren't on the side of Reagan and Thatcher.  The post Watergate Big Media was already in the pocket of the D's by then as well

Yeah, I pretty much remember most of the lying, smearing and name calling going one way over here.  Against Reagan.

One Thatcher quote I remember was regarding Arthur Scargill, head of the coal miners union -- recall this was during a time when the USSR had recently invaded Afghanistan and was intentionally murdering kids there, and was paying Cuba to send troops to cause havoc in strategic locations where they could do the most damage such as in places like Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua -- about Mr Scargill, she said something to the effect he was saying 'nicer things about Brezhnev and the Soviets than about her and the Tories'.   

And apparently that rang true with your electorate. 

[MV/Liberace!]

i'm sitting here watching hannity chat with a room full black conservative republicans.  i can't help but wonder how many weeks of organization it took to assemble these people in one place at one time.

[RealCool Daddio]

i'm sitting here watching hannity chat with a room full black conservative republicans.  i can't help but wonder how many weeks of organization it took to assemble these people in one place at one time.

phphphht!


Made me spit take.

[Sardondi]

I guess everyone has heard about the TV uber-foodie star Paula Deen being caught in a racism-tinged she said/she said deal with a former employee. Seems Deen had to make some kind of admissions about having used "the n-word" (I detest that euphemism) "as a woman from Savannah, Georgia". Sounds pretty bad. She's white. She's from the South. So she must be a Republican, right?......Oh...wait....seems Paula Deen is a big ol' buddy of good friends Barry and Michelle Obama. Gosh, she campaigned for them in 2008, contributed to them, and brought pal Michelle onto her show for some of that food face time during the campaign season: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/celebrities-political-affiliations-20122210/25628

Oops, but later Paula also dished the high-caloric dirt on 'Chelle, saying that the First Girlfriend packed away the food when the cameras stopped rolling. OUCH! Deen said Mrs. O pigged out when off-camera. “She probably ate more than any other guest I ever had on the show! She kept eating even dur­ing commercials. Know what [the Obamas’] favorite foods are? Hot wings.” [urlhttp://nakeddc.com/2013/06/22/alleged-racist-paula-deen-gave-lots-of-help-to-barack-obama/][/url]

Knew it. Not just that both Obamas are world-class hypocrites about virtually every aspect of their lives, public and private including Michelle's oh-so-superior eat-like-me BS, when in fact she's just a plain old table hog.

But I gotta say I'm amazed that Paula Deen was such a big old Obamite. So perfect.

[Larkin]

Tom Sullivan is great - has a moderate conservative talk show on KFBK every day from noon to 3.  You can stream it live for free via I Heart Radio.

[stevesh]

There must be a hockey game going on in Hell - I actually agree with, and applaud, something uttered by Elizabeth Warren. Discussing the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations during the confirmation hearings for US Trade representative:


“I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant,” Warren explained. “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”

You go, girl.

[MV/Liberace!]

There must be a hockey game going on in Hell - I actually agree with, and applaud, something uttered by Elizabeth Warren. Discussing the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations during the confirmation hearings for US Trade representative:


“I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant,” Warren explained. “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”

You go, girl.

makes sense to me... although, "you go, girl" should probably go.

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't know a thing about this person beyond what's on this video, but there are apparently still people in the UK with the ability to understand the world around them.  This gets better as it goes along.


"My name is Paul Weston, and I am a racist"

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't know a thing about this person beyond what's on this video, but there are apparently still people in the UK with the ability to understand the world around them.  This gets better as it goes along.


"My name is Paul Weston, and I am a racist"

Indeed...


more here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Freedom_Party


Seems they didn't have their finger that hard on the pulse of the nation...

The British Freedom Party (BFP) was a short-lived far-right political party in the United Kingdom.[1][2] The party was registered on 18 October 2010. The party was de-registered by the Electoral Commission in December 2012[3] after failing to return the annual registration form and £25 fee by the due date of 31 October 2012.[4]


The British Freedom Party fielded six candidates in the 2012 local elections, including five in Liverpool. All polled very low, ranging from 0.6 - 4.2% of the vote. In Fazakerley, Peter Stafford received 50 votes, a 1.51% share of the total in that ward

[RealCool Daddio]

Indeed...


more here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Freedom_Party


Seems they didn't have their finger that hard on the pulse of the nation...

Yes, it appears that the good people of England have the simple common sense to reject this hateful, harmful group, who are direct decendents of the National Front.  No surprise that Paper Boy finds them appealing.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, it appears that the good people of England have the simple common sense to reject this hateful, harmful group, who are direct decendents of the National Front.  No surprise that Paper Boy finds them appealing.

If you look on the said Mr Weston's own blog he makes tacit excuses for what this filth did...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22951220


There is no excuse for murder from (and inflicted on) anyone. This vile individual still insists right was on his side. 

[PB the Deplorable]

If you look on the said Mr Weston's own blog he makes tacit excuses for what this filth did...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22951220


There is no excuse for murder from (and inflicted on) anyone. This vile individual still insists right was on his side.

Yes, change the subject to... Norway.  Looking on his blog I didn't find anything about that incident.  It must be buried after the first several pages.

He seems to have a great deal to say on a number of topics - mostly pointing out the danger of importing Islam to the West on a massive scale, and the infiltration of our institutions by the Left and their true intent.  I'm sure there is likely to be something somewhere in all that that he'd like to take back, or new details came to light, or where he tries to rationalize something that isn't ratinalizable.  Like I said when I posted that video, I know nothing about him other than what he has to say on just that video.  And now what I've seen in just a quick skim of his blog topics.

So he thinks British culture is worth keeping, and wonders how allowing a bunch of poor people who will swamp public services to immigrate is good for the country.  What a loon.

I wish more candidates were as honest - regardless of their ideology - instead of evading questions and issues, spinning, and lying about their intentions.  I'm going to guess this guy isn't completely lost without his teleprompter.  Unfortunately, the electorate - here and there - prefer slick empty suits.

[onan]

I wish more candidates were as honest - regardless of their ideology - instead of evading questions and issues, spinning, and lying about their intentions.  I'm going to guess this guy isn't completely lost without his teleprompter.

You and me both, brah.

[PB the Deplorable]

Now Hilary 'What does it matter' Clinton is being presented as our next logical President.

Oh, she's is being coy - 'let me say this, hypothetically speaking, I really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime... and whether it's next time or the next time after that, it really depends on women stepping up and subjecting themselves to the political process, which is very difficult... I would certainly vote for the right woman to be president."

All very well and good.  Until we get to the next part:  electing a woman to the White House would send 'exactly the right historical signal' to men, women, and children (don't ever forget to work 'the children' into a speech, Hil).  She was at least gracious enough to leave it to others to point out that she's just so smart.

Isn't this the same road we just traveled to get the current person in the White House?  'It's just the right time', 'it's so historic', 'it sends the right message', 'black kids (girls) will have a President that looks like them to look up to', 'I'd/we'd like to see it in my/our lifetime'.  How is selecting a person based on what they look like, or whose 'turn' it is - or any of this - working out?

Nothing about accomplishments, nothing about where she wants to take the country, nothing about merit.  Neither one of them could get elected if any of that was considered.  Nope, it's simply a woman's turn, and here's Lady Macbeth coming off her triumphant stint as Sec of State who just so happens to be willing to serve the public once again. 

And I bet she could make good use of all the data Obama has been collecting on us.




Want a black man in the White House, how about Dr Ben Carson?  A woman - there are plenty that have run recently, and more on the way up through the ranks.  What?  Oh, this anointing people based on whose 'turn' it is is only for the Ds?  Of course.  How did I miss that.

[onan]

Dr. Ben Carson is a very impressive man. His "educate a man and you liberate a man" statement alone, makes him worthy of consideration. His thoughts on solving problems rather than trying to win the argument might just be brilliant.


I did notice he is anti gun... in large cities. That may be too big a hurdle for a conservative.

[Sardondi]

...Want a black man in the White House, how about Dr Ben Carson?...

Hear, hear! A man whose credentials as a Strong, Proud, Black Man were absolutely unassailable...until he made the keynote address at the National Prayer Breakfast and, with President Obama in attendance, made remarks condemning political correctness in which Carson's political conservatism became apparent. Suddenly Dr. Ben Carson was no longer this marvelous role model of what poor, minority kids can achieve if they apply themselves; instead Carson became an Uncle (Clarence) Thom(as), evil and embarrassingly unworthy of his black skin. Funny how that black pride and regard of the community thing works only if the wearer of the black skin understands that he always has belonged and always will belong to the Democrats. And he must be willing to raise his black voice in worship in a variation on familiar words of praise:

                      "GOV-OLOGY",
                      also known as
                 "The OLD 100th (%)"
     "Praise Gov from which all good things flow;
      Praise Gov at which all monies grow;
      Praise Gov o'er all, even at huge loss;
      Praise Neo, for he's The Uber-Boss. Yeah, Man."

...A woman - there are plenty that have run recently, and more on the way up through the ranks.  What?  Oh, this anointing people based on whose 'turn' it is is only for the Ds? Of course.  How did I miss that.

You betcha. And a Sarah Palin presidency could not possibly have been worse than Obama I or II, either domestically or with regard to foreign relations. For starters, the country wouldn't have had a solid 5½ years - so far - of constant lying as to every aspect of federal governance. Under a Palin Administration, the only ones who would have kept up a constant barrage of mockery, derision and contempt would have been the mainstream media; as opposed to foreign governments, which would have approached a Palin Presidency with, at a minimum, caution if not grudging respect. But they would have not have defied or harmed the US with impunity.

As opposed to the current Administration, in which the attitudes and positions of the parties as set out above are reversed.

[stevesh]

My new favorite Congressperson:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/duckworth-rips-witness-over-veterans-disability-claim/

[RealCool Daddio]

You betcha. And a Sarah Palin presidency could not possibly have been worse than Obama I or II, either domestically or with regard to foreign relations. For starters, the country wouldn't have had a solid 5½ years - so far - of constant lying as to every aspect of federal governance. Under a Palin Administration, the only ones who would have kept up a constant barrage of mockery, derision and contempt would have been the mainstream media; as opposed to foreign governments, which would have approached a Palin Presidency with, at a minimum, caution if not grudging respect. But they would have not have defied or harmed the US with impunity.

You are forgetting, my good man, that Sarah would have quit the presidency well before any of the above could have come to pass.

[West of the Rockies]

Here's an interesting blurb from The Daily Kos (dreaded commie-pinko website):

So Fox News pundit Erick Erickson and Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman get into a back-and-forth about the price of milk and breadâ€"Erickson says prices are soaring, Krugman points out that Erickson is actually completely wrong and that prices are stable. Confronted with the facts, how does Erickson respond? Like this:

Paul's point is correct, but it is an issue of perception of people versus the reality of his chart.  He can certainly go tell people milk prices haven't gone up, but good luck getting them to believe him.
So, according to Erickson, Krugman is right, and he's wrong, but it doesn't matter, because nobody is going to believe Krugman anyway. In other words, conservatives really don't want the truth. It just doesn't matter to them.

Now, I -- as a tree-hugging progressive -- read these words and see some truth and some silliness.  The silliness?  The notion that conservatives really don't want the truth.  SOME of them may not want the truth.  Some liberals may not want the truth.

But what I find especially intriguing is the point Erickson himself makes that the objective truth is irrelevant -- that perception is everything.

What other things are we liberals and conservatives arguing over where there is, indeed, some objective truth that we can agree upon?  Not global warming.  Not evolution.  Not how to deal with the deficit.  Not what to do about our energy needs.  Not abortion.  Not immigration.   

Not, not, not, not, not, not, NOT!

Okay, but -- at least in theory -- we DO agree on some things, yes?  We all want our children and grandchildren to grow up in a world that values their freedom.  (Of course, even here there is some pretty significant disagreement.  Some don't want them to have the freedom to select their romantic partner IF that person is of the same sex.  Some don't want them to have the freedom to arm themselves against enemies foreign and domestic.)*   Please, for the love of all things holy, note that I am at least TRYING to point out silliness on BOTH sides of the aisle.

We say we value education while villifying teachers.  (Libs tend to villify administrators.)

I wish we could come together and get some truly necessary legislation passed on all manner of issues, but it seems damn near impossible to me at present.  The Senate passed an immigration bill.  The House appears poised to piss all over it.

This is why I am becoming less and less interested in even entering the political fray.  Too much partisan bickering and naysaying.

Any thoughts anyone?