PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Wait, so now people who have a low opinion of government are idiot mouth-breathers?


SNR
09-05-2011, 04:05 PM
This editorial got a lot of pub today around the internet. Mostly by naive "WE CAN DO IT IF WE CUM TOGETHER AS PARTIES!!!1" types. The bold comments struck me as fascinatingly retarded. I mean, most of this is trash. I'm just stunned at this guy's romanticization of the Republicans' supposed evil plan to bring ruin to the country. It's like all Republicans since Reagan have pencil-thin mustaches that they stroke in small smoke-filled basement rooms.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
Saturday 3 September 2011
by: Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"

Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity" (1944)

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.

The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel - how prudent is that? - in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.

Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was "bring it on!"

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.

In his "Manual of Parliamentary Practice," Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is less important that every rule and custom of a legislature be absolutely justifiable in a theoretical sense, than that they should be generally acknowledged and honored by all parties. These include unwritten rules, customs and courtesies that lubricate the legislative machinery and keep governance a relatively civilized procedure. The US Senate has more complex procedural rules than any other legislative body in the world; many of these rules are contradictory, and on any given day, the Senate parliamentarian may issue a ruling that contradicts earlier rulings on analogous cases.

The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a "high functioning" institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.

John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:

"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

This constant drizzle of "there the two parties go again!" stories out of the news bureaus, combined with the hazy confusion of low-information voters, means that the long-term Republican strategy of undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral dividends. The United States has nearly the lowest voter participation among Western democracies; this, again, is a consequence of the decline of trust in government institutions - if government is a racket and both parties are the same, why vote? And if the uninvolved middle declines to vote, it increases the electoral clout of a minority that is constantly being whipped into a lather by three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. There were only 44 million Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.

This tactic of inducing public distrust of government is not only cynical, it is schizophrenic. For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document. This is not to say that there is not some theoretical limit to the size or intrusiveness of government; I would be the first to say there are such limits, both fiscal and Constitutional. But most Republican officeholders seem strangely uninterested in the effective repeal of Fourth Amendment protections by the Patriot Act, the weakening of habeas corpus and self-incrimination protections in the public hysteria following 9/11 or the unpalatable fact that the United States has the largest incarcerated population of any country on earth. If anything, they would probably opt for more incarcerated persons, as imprisonment is a profit center for the prison privatization industry, which is itself a growth center for political contributions to these same politicians.[1] Instead, they prefer to rail against those government programs that actually help people. And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an agonized concern about the deficit. That concern, as we shall see, is largely fictitious.

Undermining Americans' belief in their own institutions of self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy. But if this technique falls short of producing Karl Rove's dream of 30 years of unchallengeable one-party rule (as all such techniques always fall short of achieving the angry and embittered true believer's New Jerusalem), there are other even less savory techniques upon which to fall back. Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.

This legislative assault is moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens. Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don't want those people voting.

You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.[2] Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. pillowbiters. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.

It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base with a nod and a wink. During the disgraceful circus of the "birther" issue, Republican politicians subtly stoked the fires of paranoia by being suggestively equivocal - "I take the president at his word" - while never unambiguously slapping down the myth. John Huntsman was the first major GOP figure forthrightly to refute the birther calumny - albeit after release of the birth certificate.

I do not mean to place too much emphasis on racial animus in the GOP. While it surely exists, it is also a fact that Republicans think that no Democratic president could conceivably be legitimate. Republicans also regarded Bill Clinton as somehow, in some manner, twice fraudulently elected (well do I remember the elaborate conspiracy theories that Republicans traded among themselves). Had it been Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, who had been elected in 2008, I am certain we would now be hearing, in lieu of the birther myths, conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's alleged murder.

The reader may think that I am attributing Svengali-like powers to GOP operatives able to manipulate a zombie base to do their bidding. It is more complicated than that. Historical circumstances produced the raw material: the deindustrialization and financialization of America since about 1970 has spawned an increasingly downscale white middle class - without job security (or even without jobs), with pensions and health benefits evaporating and with their principal asset deflating in the collapse of the housing bubble. Their fears are not imaginary; their standard of living is shrinking.

What do the Democrats offer these people? Essentially nothing. Democratic Leadership Council-style "centrist" Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the 1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly by downscaled and outsourced whites.[3]

While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations' bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let's build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it's evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists.

How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats. Republicans don't make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is never the "estate tax," it is the "death tax." Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that lucre is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.

It was not always thus. It would have been hard to find an uneducated farmer during the depression of the 1890s who did not have a very accurate idea about exactly which economic interests were shafting him. An unemployed worker in a breadline in 1932 would have felt little gratitude to the Rockefellers or the Mellons. But that is not the case in the present economic crisis. After a riot of unbridled greed such as the world has not seen since the conquistadors' looting expeditions and after an unprecedented broad and rapid transfer of wealth upward by Wall Street and its corporate satellites, where is the popular anger directed, at least as depicted in the media? At "Washington spending" - which has increased primarily to provide unemployment compensation, food stamps and Medicaid to those economically damaged by the previous decade's corporate saturnalia. Or the popular rage is harmlessly diverted against pseudo-issues: death panels, birtherism, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, none of which stands to dent the corporate bottom line in the slightest.

(the rest of this is ridiculously long. If you want it, go ahead and check out the link)

whoman69
09-05-2011, 04:25 PM
People will believe whatever they have been told. Republicans have been using the mantra for 30 years now and people are believing. Republicans in that time have over-reacted to Democratic presidents like Pavlov's dog. From sending out a special prosecutor who convened a grand jury in a civil case, to fillibustering 80% of legislation, Republican feel they need to take back the country when voted out of the white house. I would think getting voted out in the first place might have let them know they were doing something not quite right.

banyon
09-05-2011, 06:45 PM
A pretty insightful critique into the current failings of both parties and where we stand.

It's too bad that it doesn't fit into a two syllable soundbite that no one can be bothered to read in its entirety (not even the OP poster ironically).

craneref
09-05-2011, 07:02 PM
People will believe whatever they have been told. Republicans have been using the mantra for 30 years now and people are believing. Republicans in that time have over-reacted to Democratic presidents like Pavlov's dog. From sending out a special prosecutor who convened a grand jury in a civil case, to fillibustering 80% of legislation, Republican feel they need to take back the country when voted out of the white house. I would think getting voted out in the first place might have let them know they were doing something not quite right.

And the Democrats were congenial to President Bush? The Democrats can throw around any word they want and it is artistic license, yet the Republicans use colorful language and they are uncivil anarchists!! Hypocracy rules the day in DC, palin and simple. That which Governs least , Governs Best!

Warrior5
09-05-2011, 07:06 PM
And the Democrats were congenial to President Bush? The Democrats can throw around any word they want and it is artistic license, yet the Republicans use colorful language and they are uncivil anarchists!! Hypocracy rules the day in DC, palin and simple. That which Governs least , Governs Best!

Freudian slip?

orange
09-05-2011, 07:07 PM
And the Democrats were congenial to President Bush?

When are you rightwingers ever going to stop bringing up Bush?

banyon
09-05-2011, 07:14 PM
And the Democrats were congenial to President Bush? The Democrats can throw around any word they want and it is artistic license, yet the Republicans use colorful language and they are uncivil anarchists!! Hypocracy rules the day in DC, palin and simple. That which Governs least , Governs Best!

They didn't threaten to filibuster everything Bush came up with. They didn't vote down party lines on every issue, plus they didn't control either branch until 2007, (at which point Bush set the veto record for a year). Check out the prescription drug benefit, the Iraq War vote, or No child left behind for roll call votes. I think the author has a point. Of course since the Dems are led by gutless p*ssies, it's not like it matters.

SNR
09-05-2011, 07:16 PM
A pretty insightful critique into the current failings of both parties and where we stand.

It's too bad that it doesn't fit into a two syllable soundbite that no one can be bothered to read in its entirety (not even the OP poster ironically).I read the entire thing, asshole

banyon
09-05-2011, 07:17 PM
I read the entire thing, asshole

You said it was ridiculously long. Typically people don't keep reading if they think the length is ridiculous. Apologies for my mistaken assumption.

SNR
09-05-2011, 07:24 PM
You said it was ridiculously long. Typically people don't keep reading if they think the length is ridiculous. Apologies for my mistaken assumption.The point is I know several very intelligent people who blame both parties and have a deep distrust of the federal government's competency and programs. In fact, I know several of them right here on this board. That's not to say they reject any and all bills that are passed by the government, but rather they are just numb from years and years of politicians lying to them.

And then this author tells them they harbor "ill-informed cynicism" and possess the societal awareness of people who don't even know which party controls what.

banyon
09-05-2011, 07:32 PM
The point is, I know several very intelligent people who blame both parties and have a deep distrust of the federal government's competency and programs. In fact, I know several of them right here on this board. That's not to say they reject any and all bills that are passed by the government, but rather they are just numb from years and years of politicians lying to them.

And then this author tells them they harbor "ill-informed cynicism" and possess the societal awareness of people who don't even know which party controls what.

I feel like I need a Venn Diagram.

He is right that there are tens of millions of low information voters who cry a pox on both their houses, throw up their hands, and go back to reading Marmaduke.


You are right that there are many well informed people who believe that the system is structurally collapsing and that the corruption in both parties requires a new way.

Some doesn't equal all, nor do I think that the author was claiming that. I think your reaction to this facet of the article is mal-directed.

In fact, taking your conclusion literally, the author would be calling himself a "mouth-breather" because he is also blaming both parties and distrustful of government programs currently in place.

This author makes some astute claims which no doubt derive from his vantage point staring directly out from the belly of the beast. It's not earth shattering, but I think it fairly sums up the disdain of some for the seeming rut we've grown into politically.

SNR
09-05-2011, 08:22 PM
I feel like I need a Venn Diagram.

He is right that there are tens of millions of low information voters who cry a pox on both their houses, throw up their hands, and go back to reading Marmaduke.


You are right that there are many well informed people who believe that the system is structurally collapsing and that the corruption in both parties requires a new way.

Some doesn't equal all, nor do I think that the author was claiming that. I think your reaction to this facet of the article is mal-directed.

In fact, taking your conclusion literally, the author would be calling himself a "mouth-breather" because he is also blaming both parties and distrustful of government programs currently in place.

This author makes some astute claims which no doubt derive from his vantage point staring directly out from the belly of the beast. It's not earth shattering, but I think it fairly sums up the disdain of some for the seeming rut we've grown into politically.Marmaduke? Is that like Twilight?

The author has offered no proof (either with poll data or even anecdotal evidence) that distrust of both political parties was even remotely tied to a even a mere handful of people who are uninformed. I get your point that some =/= all. So why does he even try to connect the two in the first place? That's like talking about the murder rate in Oakland, CA, and then going on to say it's Raider fans that are part of the problem... except without qualifying that it's only SOME Raider fans who are murderers.

And yeah, I realize this is far from the author's point of the entire article. He posted some good hypocrisies about the Republicans. It's just the little bit I have bolded is mostly what pissed me off.

Either way, I'm glad you got some good bits out of it.

orange
09-05-2011, 09:07 PM
Marmaduke? Is that like Twilight?

http://www.media-freaks.com/work/leilei/marmaduke/marmaduke-00.jpg

Saul Good
09-05-2011, 09:20 PM
That's a lot of writing to say "People who think both parties are evil are stupid. Only the Republicans are evil".

Very nuanced.

HonestChieffan
09-05-2011, 09:48 PM
"For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document."

What a crock of shit.

I wonder if he knows why a constitution was written? It is the very distrust of government that the constitution is supposed to address. Protection from government is a very foundation of the document.

The federal government is not immune from criticism. In fact most is well deserved.

The issues with the federal government are not party driven. R, D, I. All have a good dose of idiots.

The lack of trust in non elected bureaucrats is just as big an issue as our dissatisfaction with the congress and with the executive branch. Defending the institutions of government because this hack thinks people are ignorant and uninformed tells me he was well suited for a life in the bureaucracy.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:38 PM
"For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document."

What a crock of shit.

I wonder if he knows why a constitution was written? It is the very distrust of government that the constitution is supposed to address. Protection from government is a very foundation of the document.



Actually it was written because the Articles of Confederation were profoundly inadequate to sustain our existence as a separate country.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:40 PM
Marmaduke? Is that like Twilight?

The author has offered no proof (either with poll data or even anecdotal evidence) that distrust of both political parties was even remotely tied to a even a mere handful of people who are uninformed. I get your point that some =/= all. So why does he even try to connect the two in the first place? That's like talking about the murder rate in Oakland, CA, and then going on to say it's Raider fans that are part of the problem... except without qualifying that it's only SOME Raider fans who are murderers.

And yeah, I realize this is far from the author's point of the entire article. He posted some good hypocrisies about the Republicans. It's just the little bit I have bolded is mostly what pissed me off.

Either way, I'm glad you got some good bits out of it.

Fair enough.

If you didn't know Marmaduke is the worst comic strip in our national history in my humble opinion. I am convinced it is written by a robot with just a few multisided dice or whatever to figure out the 6 variations of what is the damn mutt doing today?

SNR
09-06-2011, 08:58 PM
Fair enough.

If you didn't know Marmaduke is the worst comic strip in our national history in my humble opinion. I am convinced it is written by a robot with just a few multisided dice or whatever to figure out the 6 variations of what is the damn mutt doing today?I would have gone with Family Circus, but that works, too

Chiefshrink
09-07-2011, 09:01 AM
When are you rightwingers ever going to stop bringing up Bush?

Look in the mirror:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
09-07-2011, 09:13 AM
"For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document."

What a crock of shit.

I wonder if he knows why a constitution was written? It is the very distrust of government that the constitution is supposed to address. Protection from government is a very foundation of the document.

The federal government is not immune from criticism. In fact most is well deserved.

The issues with the federal government are not party driven. R, D, I. All have a good dose of idiots.

The lack of trust in non elected bureaucrats is just as big an issue as our dissatisfaction with the congress and with the executive branch. Defending the institutions of government because this hack thinks people are ignorant and uninformed tells me he was well suited for a life in the bureaucracy.

Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer for one reason and one reason only and that is to find ways to tear it down and make it irrelevant(loopholes,ignore,mis-interpret on purpose, etc...) because as you know he views the Constitution as bunch of negative liberties:rolleyes: which is an oxymoron.

It's a White Man's Constitution in this President's Eyes !!!!!

Who is the real racist here???

A President who is silent when Maxine Waters, Andre Carson and Jimmy Hoffa speak.:thumb:

The double standard "alive and well" with the Marxist Dem party:thumb:

suzzer99
09-07-2011, 11:23 AM
sportshrink do you have to wipe the spittle off your monitor after every post? You are seriously stark-raving mad.

Mr. Kotter
09-07-2011, 12:13 PM
Some who hold both parties with contempt are, very clearly, from the low end of the intellectual and gene pools. These folks are easily identified because they misdirect their anger toward relatively powerless institutions of government--rather than the political process that is the real source of the problem.

On the other hand, there are also many other well informed and educated folks who share a contempt for the political process--which is the real villian. These folks are easily identified because they place the blame with the process, not institutions---institutions though perfect, are merely pawns in the despicable process.

The difference is in how one reaches their conclusion. However, make no mistake both groups are right, presently, to feel as they do--even if one group arrives there serendipitously.

Predarat
09-07-2011, 12:20 PM
When are you rightwingers ever going to stop bringing up Bush?

Hell, if I were a rightwinger I would want everyone to forget about that fucking idiot bush.

Saul Good
09-07-2011, 03:26 PM
Fair enough.

If you didn't know Marmaduke is the worst comic strip in our national history in my humble opinion. I am convinced it is written by a robot with just a few multisided dice or whatever to figure out the 6 variations of what is the damn mutt doing today?

Big dog sits on something you want.

There's 57 years and counting worth of comics right there.