Rug Burn Junky on 23/10/2010 at 20:46
Formula:
Code:
Take actual facts.
Apply CCToad's ridiculous misunderstanding of the modern world
=
OMG CONSPIRACY!
As worrisome as it may be from a civil rights perspective (see abuses by tarded adminstrations like Bush/Cheney, infra) there is a fundamental difference between requiring the implementation of the
capability to wiretap into computer systems for
lawful warranted surveillance, and a systematic use of warrantless wiretaps under the patriot act
But that's reality, something you've amply demonstrated an inability to process and comprehend.
Don't you ever get tired of being so fucking stupid? You are positively relentless in your ignorance.
Cokehead on 23/10/2010 at 20:53
All that said though, Obama probably will get my vote. But if someone better shows up on the ballot in '12, I'm going for it. From a political perspective, he's been an amazing disappointment. But I don't regret my first official ballot going in his favor.
Just wish it was a little less wasted x.x
Tocky on 24/10/2010 at 06:14
It beats voting for whatever corporate toady republicans offer up.
Quote Posted by Master Villain
"Conservative Agenda" sounds like something people would find reassuring. I occasionally try to think up something when I read about US politics, but I'm damned if I can think of two words which have the same kick as "liberal agenda" with the steel capped boot heading for Republican teeth.
Everything I have seen them do is for the rich. Tax breaks for the rich, protect insurance companies from health care, lucrative war contracts, you name it. In any situation it is as if lobbyists have a remote control. Sure they use the magicians misdirection with shouts of gay socialist liberal abortion gun control prayer but what they do is give corporations the right to donate endless amounts of money secretly while buying radio and television and working jedi mind tricks on the weak. How about "Corporate Agenda"? It sounds sinister because it is.
theBlackman on 24/10/2010 at 07:24
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
[...]
Don't you ever get tired of being so fucking stupid? [...]
Nice, precise summary. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Rug Burn Junky on 24/10/2010 at 07:54
Quote Posted by Tocky
Everything I have seen them do is for the rich. Tax breaks for the rich, protect insurance companies from health care, lucrative war contracts, you name it. In any situation it is as if lobbyists have a remote control. Sure they use the magicians misdirection with shouts of gay socialist liberal abortion gun control prayer but what they do is give corporations the right to donate endless amounts of money secretly while buying radio and television and working jedi mind tricks on the weak. How about "Corporate Agenda"? It sounds sinister because it is.
On that note:
(
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/rational-conservatism-still-exists.html) Rational Conservatism Still Exists
I am as forcefully against movement conservatism (of which the Bush administration and the current Republican caucus are the apotheosis) as anyone. It is what has broken our political system and it is the reason we here at TTLG have to deal with the blatherings of the likes of CCCToad, T13x, and before them a whole army of interchangeable sound-a-likes like agwpt or TheGreatGodPan, who have fallen for the jedi mind tricks but are merely symptoms of the greater problem.
But, and I've said this before, I'm actually very sympathetic to true conservative thought. I'm probably more familiar with it than most so-called "conservatives" on the internet, having put in the time reading Adam Smith, Burke, Oakeshott, Hayek, and the like. I have "The Conscience of a Conservative" by Friedman on my nightstand right now. Fuck, Winston Churchill is one of my political idols.
So nobody roots for an actual resurgence of conservative thought harder than I do. I actually agree with it some of the time, and even when I don't I want rational proponents against whom to debate the merits (such as the long lost JKeats here, the lone voice of sanity in the conservative tard-thicket of TTLG).
I think Sullivan admirably puts that all into perspective here, and I root for him in his quest. I read him daily, as well as Conor Friedersdorf and Julian Sanchez and a couple of others. I don't agree with them all the time, but even where I disagree, I can't find fault with their methods. It's good to remember that there is a rational strain of conservatism out there, but you will not find it in the Republican Party, and you most certainly will not find it in the Tea Party.
CCCToad on 24/10/2010 at 15:35
Quote:
Everything I have seen them do is for the rich. Tax breaks for the rich, protect insurance companies from health care, lucrative war contracts, you name it. In any situation it is as if lobbyists have a remote control. Sure they use the magicians misdirection with shouts of gay socialist liberal abortion gun control prayer but what they do is give corporations the right to donate endless amounts of money secretly while buying radio and television and working jedi mind tricks on the weak. How about "Corporate Agenda"? It sounds sinister because it is.
Their philosophy definitely seems to work to their advantage. Its a bit interesting to hear Rush Limbaugh spouting on about how whatever legislation that affects Big Corporation X amounts to an attack on capitalism, yet he's too stupid to see that unrestricted corporatism is the antithesis of free enterprise.
Also, Cheney doesn't seem to popular around here...
Inline Image:
http://afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cheney_satan.jpgOh, wait, that actually is a pretty accurate picture of him.
Tocky on 26/10/2010 at 02:48
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It's good to remember that there is a rational strain of conservatism out there, but you will not find it in the Republican Party, and you most certainly will not find it in the Tea Party.
When was the last we saw of it? Eisenhower. Dick was too busy being tricky to practice it full time and when we got to Reagan we had trickle down which ignores that money pools at the top after gushing up. The tea party idiots think we can balance the budget by cutting social programs and giving tax breaks to the rich when the last balanced budget was under Clinton who did neither. True conservatism is in a sad state.
I don't think any of it matters when we have for so long ignored the words manufacturing base. Base, as in bottom of a pyramid. Maybe there are things I just don't understand. I hope so. But I don't understand how a pyramid can stand when the top is the biggest part.
Rug Burn Junky on 26/10/2010 at 04:52
I loathe Reagan. And his legacy is unfortunate in that the worst most damaging aspects of his rhetoric are what is remembered, rather than some of his finer moments - and even he had a few.
But while the rhetoric of "trickle down" was ridiculous then and is no more effective now, his actual policies didn't really reflect the current extremism that grew out of it (remember, even after eight years and the '86 omnibus tax act, marginal tax rates under Reagan were still higher than they are now). Sure, had he had his way without a Democratic congress he may have gone further than he did, but the fact is, as compared to the virulent strains of faux conservatism that arose after the Clinton presidency, he was far more pragmatic as a president than either his proponents or most of his detractors care to admit. The problem of course being that he used such extreme rhetoric ("government is never the solution") that his followers continue to push those policies long after they've outlived their usefulness. But this gets back to the Tea Party problem, they're taking seriously that which was never meant as anything more than propaganda, and Reagan, if not the genesis, was at least a prime cause of that phenomenon.
I don't give him full credit for the fall of the Soviet Union with the god-like powers most Repubs would, but even if you can't say he caused it, he certainly handled it well. HAd W been around Gorbachev may have nuked Washington just to get that stupid smirk off of his face.
So yeah, at the end of the day, for all of his flaws, Reagan the man was at least capable of being possessed of rationality, even if Reagan, the Myth is an extremist douchenozzle.
And Bush the Elder lost the presidency because he took the hard step of saying "you know what? We can't just borrow forever, we are going to have to raise taxes." His economic policies reflected realities rather than ideology. I have to give him credit for that, and I would certainly paint him as a rational adult conservative.
But that's not even what I meant - I meant that there are conservative thinkers. The actual republican politicians are nothing of the sort, and but for Eisenhower, never really have been. I often wonder if Colin Powell could have been that man, but who knows.
Guys like Sullivan, Friedersdorf, and even Douthat have a lot going for them. They are not intellectually dishonest. I wish more people who called themselves conservatives would actually do the hard work of thinking through the issues the way these guys do.
The fact is, Conservatism was really great for one thing: fighting communism. And yeah, in the 70's some bit of deregulation was probably necessary. That's it, really. and they've been in the intellectual wilderness ever since, still trying to fight a war that's already been long over and justify their existence - except now they're painting anyone who isn't conservative (and some who are) AS communists, even if they're not explicitly saying so. They "won" that fight, except it wasn't ever really a fight, because the idea that the US itself would become communist was ridiculous from the get go and that was always a straw-man. But having won that fight, they don't realize that they also lost it - parts of our economy are already collectivist, and must necessarily be , and this just doesn't fit with the black and white world that they've constructed, so they are convinced that any collectivist action is GUARANTEED SOCIALISM! and constantly try to shout their way down that slippery slope.
Sullivan et. al are a new generation, not falling into that trap, and that is what ultimately gives me hope for the future of the conservative soul being rescued from unthinking automatons like our little pet conservitards here.
CCCToad on 26/10/2010 at 21:46
Powell is a good speaker, but I'd pose a hypothetical question to anyone who still admires him: is anyone here actually familiar with why and how he rose through the ranks so quickly?
demagogue on 26/10/2010 at 22:22
He got selected for a political fellowship with the executive branch and ended up being a very savvy politician for the military, very pragmatic and he knew how to game the system, and it was in that role that he started advancing so quickly. He's also charismatic and knows how to translate ideas into appeals that move people. One of my best memories from the State Department was the meeting we had with Powell and he explained a situation so well, so practically, and at the end he made a personal appeal to us, and I thought wow, if Colin Powell is going to make a personal appeal to me, I'll be damned if I let him down. He just has that effect. He's magnetic. And that was at a time when so many other things going on around there (i.e., the Iraq war) would just pull you down. But Powell was the one ray of light that made you feel that at least someone was really trying to think things through and do the best thing for the situation.
