GOP--Sore Losers

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:19 pm

Crissa wrote:No, he was a moron because he disdained opposing opinions, and believed in 'gut' and 'religion' over observable evidence.

-Crissa

Hey, following my "gut" has gotten me hired at a better job and has me closer to having an actual girlfriend than I've been in 3 years.

Granted, I'm not trying to run a country, so there's less at stake if I fuck up.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:06 pm

Maxus wrote:Honestly, I voted for Obama because 1) Palin was Vice President nominee 2) McCain is getting up to that age where people just die for no reason. Palin would have then been in power. Yikes.

Maxus, in all honestly, I have to question your first reason. Sure Palin was no rocket scientist, but as far as vice presidents so, she is still far above current one that it isn't even funny.

As for the second reason, we are talking about a Vietnam vet, not a WWII vet. McCain submitted his full medical history to the media, Obama only a single page.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:29 pm

Yeah, Obama must have been hiding something, because it is certainly impossible for a man in his forties to, you know, be healthy and even in fact not have a long medical file. A friend of mine hasn't seen a doctor in 20 years.

As for Biden and Palin, in what fucking world would she rate higher? What exactly has she done which merits even notice let and attention, barring a series of ethical violations and mishandling of money, and wasteful spending.

Serious Biden might make gaffes, but Palin was a gaffe. There is not a thoughtful republican I've met who isn't embarrassed every time her name is mentioned.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:31 pm

First of all Koumei, I don't want to say you don't raise any good points (although it is hard to have a discussion when someone uses the equivalent of a machine gun to make arguments) but that most of the talking points are just liberal clap trap that either misses the point or makes pot shots for the sake of scoring points.

You do realize that it is not all 9/11 right? There was a little thing called Enron that hit at the same time in 2001. This was a complex economic blow to the economy. Unlike some people (especially the current president) who thinks that breurcracy and pork are the way to "recover" (Didn't The One promise only 8% unemployment if we passed the "stimulus" sight unseen right away and now it's 10%+?) Bush realized that the best way was to give money to the people through tax cuts.

I know the common "class warfare" mentality of the Democrats is to attack the rich, but in all honesty how many charitable foundations are made by politicians? It's like the health care debate, you notice that congress and the president, already have their own wonderful health care system. They want everyone else to get the scraps from the table while they dine on imported beef.

As I said, you did raise a few points, and the Valerie Plane incidnet is one of them; although I personally think it reflected more of the evil side of Cheney than it did the evil side of Bush. I'll never say that Bush is a saint, nor will I say that Obama is a balrog.

I can talk endlessly about Powel. He is a nice guy, but he's a breucrat's breucrat. People can throw as many insults as they want but even the Democrats were fooled by the missing weapons of destruction. We now know that most of Saddam's men were also fooled. The liar wasn't Bush, but a petty middle eastern dictator who didn't want to loose face. (Really no one was going to try him for genocide against the Kurds, no one really liked them anyway; not Iran, not Syria, not even Saudi Arabia.)

Koumei wrote:As for evidence of Bush being evil and/or stupid, I could just point at his reign over the past 8 years and call it a day. I'm not going to drag up a list of Bushisms, on the grounds that 1) most are actually fabricated, and 2) you can say any number of stupid things without necessarily being stupid. You should hear me on the phone some time.

But seriously.

"Fuck you all, the wealthiest 1% isn't getting enough of the money, let's squeeze more money back up into that small category!" (includes funnelling EPA money into ads for his re-election... while happily signing away more "destroy the environment" bills. Also includes saying "This new bullshit scheme will create jobs!" and when it doesn't, decides that, rather than not going and handing money to the rich, just begs foreign countries to change their currencies to make American manufacturers more competitive.)

"Let's declare this flooded hurricane area to no longer be in a state of disaster, otherwise we'd need to declare it an emergency and actually spend money and people and shit."

"Waterboarding isn't torture, it's just entertainment!"

"Making fun of me on the Internet makes me sad. There should be limits to freedom of speech." <-- he didn't act on this one, just basically stated that Freedom of Speech should not cover its actual intended purpose (speaking out against those in power).

"Sure, species extinction is a bad thing, but is it as bad as, say, not having a wastebasket made out of real ivory?" (note: this only applied to *foreign* animals. See? He used restraint!)

"Powell? The UN respects you, so here, tell them this stuff about Iraq so I can send people to die there."

"Shit, nobody is getting married any more! So let's set up a protection of marriage week! We'll protect it from gays, who want to attack marriage by getting married!"

"What? This guy revealed I used false information for my war? Well I'll show him. HEY EVERYBODY, HIS WIFE IS AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT!"

"What? Let prosecutors and judges have some leeway in the prosecution, taking variables into account? Screw that, they have to charge for the maximum, to prove I'm TOUGH ON CRIME!"

"Hmm, okay, I managed to squeeze more money out, so... oh! Let's give more funding to evil religious organisations! That benefits everyone!"

"Why should we pass tax cuts for the rich? The September 11 attacks. Why should we clear cut forests and let polluters write environmental policy? The September 11 attacks. Why has America lost millions of jobs since Bush took office? The September 11 attacks."

"The Patriot Act doesn't take away enough civil liberties. Let's expand it! Yay, Patriot Day! If you don't like it, that makes you a terrorist!"

"I only like killing people when they're old enough to beg me not to - then I can mock them, too! So, if an international organisation provides even their own money for abortions, we give them no funding. Screw those women in poor nations, it's what they get for being women."

In a time when the death penalty ought to be shrinking into nonexistence what with dozens of innocent people being discovered on death row, President Bush pushes for an expansion of the death penalty, saying the current law is one of the "unreasonable obstacles" to fighting terrorism...

Oh, and his fondness for electrocuting people when Governor. Now, I'm aware that as a Catholic, killing people who are old enough to say "I don't want you to kill me" is A-ok in your books, but most people consider it pretty evil.

A cheap shot there? Sure, but you earned it, all those years ago when I first arrived here. Yeah, revenge is a dish best served cold and all that.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:32 pm

Tzor wrote:Sure Palin was no rocket scientist, but as far as vice presidents so, she is still far above current one that it isn't even funny.

Sarah Palin is quitting as governor of Alaska because she couldn't handle it and she was under investigation for numerous ethical violations. Also, she doesn't know what the Vice President even does.

Biden... sometimes talks without his notes. That's not even comparable.

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:41 pm

ckafrica wrote:As for Biden and Palin, in what fucking world would she rate higher? What exactly has she done which merits even notice let and attention, barring a series of ethical violations and mishandling of money, and wasteful spending.

Any world. In fact I would say that Biden deserves the Dan Quayle award for the "Oh my God the Vice President is speaking again award." Even before his election his gaffes were roll on the fllor funny. Yes, let's go back to those days of the Great Depression where we all watched FDR on the TV and ...

Wastefull spending? You can actually write that after the biggest wasteful pork barrel legislation was passed by The One that had to be passed immeidately (although signed a few days later) and probably won't even give most of the money to the final destinations for another year, long after the economy has recovered?

Palin's only problem was that she was vunlerable to "got you" journalism, by all those reporters from the MSM who had tingles up their legs. But then again, most people are vunlerable to that type of attack. Considering that the press gave a "get out of jail and or avoid any tough questions" card to Obama all through the campaign and the presidency, (and to a lesser extent Biden) the result should be obvious.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:46 pm

Thanks Frank, YOU BROKE THE FUCKING THREAD!

P.S. I'll tell you what, let's get a lawyers to throw non stop moronic allegations that have no merrit whatsoever, and while we are at it, let's get every two bit reporter and commedian to make non stop attacks against your children. I'll bet you daughter slept with Derrek Jeeter too!

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:22 pm

The stimulus contains a lot of good, overdue public works projects. It was actually the Republicans that stripped out its most useful elements: infrastructure development and education grants. It's important to think of those elements specifically as investments, not pork. They pay dividends.

Seriously - when the ACEA or whoever figures that it'd take $1.2T to bring the country's infrastructure up to snuff, I don't think just kicking the can down the road indefinitely is the right approach, especially when inflation alone increases that cost around 5% a year and failing to perform proper maintenance or replacements increases that number further. To categorize that as pork is just BS.

The stimulus was too small by about half and addressed a bunch of crap it shouldn't, most notably tax cuts. Tax cuts, despite what you may have been told by non-economists, do not always generate economic insta-wins. Investments, however, do.

That you think that the economy is going to recover soon is, I think, woefully misguided. That you think Keynes never existed is even worse. The easy money days are over and will be for a while.

...

Palin has been under investigation for multiple ethics violations, all but one of which has come up negative. Not only that, but the one she's been tagged on was a fund set up to help pay for her own defense because inexplicably Alaska has no in-house counsel for the governor - they pay for their defense out-of-pocket. It's the only state without one, I believe, and the fact that she's had to squirrel up $500k to pay for consistently failed civil cases is a damn good reason to quit.

The fact that she would be expected to pay for her own defense out-of-pocket and NOT raise some kind of fund is just stupid. Every other state not only has in-house counsel, most also allow that sort of fundraising on top. Alaska needs the change its laws, period.

Yes, she bullies her staff and plays around with low-grade nepotism. It's common to governorships and most every elected office. She's disdained enough in Alaska that if there was something to the allegations that went beyond the standard level of chicanery, she'd have been tagged by now. Maybe that's why she quit instead of the money reason, but if it is there haven't been many hints as to what looming findings are out there.

That said, Palin does NOT have the knowledge base needed for higher office and, what's worse, apparently has no interest in cultivating that knowledge base. My impression is that she still sees herself as a privileged beauty queen and her responses to criticism have been predictably bristling - she expects people to like her and if they don't then she hates them.

I thought the Vanity Fair article was mostly a sour grapes hit piece from the McCain camp, but it ultimately still had a lot of truth to it. It was mean-spirited and that's what she deserves if she's going to step up and play in the big leagues. Obama got it, Bush got it, everyone gets it.

Finally, there's her off-putting and spooky church. After Bush I generally don't like the too-religious politicians crowd, since it's generally accompanied by an undeserved amount of confidence in world view and a disinterest in criticism, traits that Palin seems to display in spades. They're boorish in my peers and intolerable in elected officials responsible for sending the nation to war and conducting international diplomacy.

Compare that to Biden. The man makes "gaffes" that are most often simply the unvarnished truth. Oops. I can stand that.

violence in the media · Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:07 pm

tzor wrote: Maxus, in all honestly, I have to question your first reason. Sure Palin was no rocket scientist, but as far as vice presidents so, she is still far above current one that it isn't even funny.

How about her politics and personality were repugnant and her nomination was a cynical and insulting attempt to pander to women voters? How about the even more cynical reason that she was the most "television-friendly" woman with the requisite republi-creds? It's not like the republican party was short on more-qualified alternates.

Palin was not willing to be an elected official for all Americans, she was only concerened about the ones in agreeance with her and was hostile and antagonistic towards liberals and democrats in the fashion of Dubya. Don't even start about that being her role as an attack VP, she left me with no impression that her tone would change if she were given the opportunity to represent us all.

Tangenting onto the Dubya issue, that was the real reason for the hatred from the left--he didn't give two shits about us. Dubya would have blown satan on national television to be in the position that Obama and the democrats are in now, and all Americans should breathe a collective sigh of relief that it is the democrats in such a position. If the situation were reversed, a significant percentage of Americans should be seriously worried that every freedom they've fought for in the last 50 years is about to get undone. Why? Because the democrats do not have the history of tight-knit unity that the republicans do and the probability of them telling the rebublicans to go sit on their thumbs for the next two years is low.

On my second charge, there was talk about Palin's ability to draw significant numbers of Hillary supporters away from the democratic ticket, as if their individual politics were secondary and insignificant to the presence of tits. Whut? Fuck you, Republican leadership. Fuck you right in your stupid ear.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:35 pm

How about her politics and personality were repugnant

In short, you don't like her. I think Palin's nomination was brilliant because it managed to expose the sheer hatred and bile that fuels left-wing politics.

If the situation were reversed, a significant percentage of Americans should be seriously worried that every freedom they've fought for in the last 50 years is about to get undone.

Are you insane?

ckafrica wrote: As for Biden and Palin, in what fucking world would she rate higher?

Palin talks like the mom from Bobby's World and has a $150,000 wardrobe. Biden is a plagiarizer.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:45 pm

Biden is in the pocket of Slavery of Information interests.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:00 pm

Seriously show me one gaffe on thislist from FOXNews that is actually significant, that would make you question a 6 time senator's (and former head of the judicial and foreign affairs committees) ability conduct the responsibilities of VP or President.

I mean I don't hold it against people who might not want the Dems in for ideological reasons, I think you're wrong but to each their own (hahaha btw). But if you seriously think Palin is more qualified to be one step away from the presidency, than you sir are dumb as a brick, or batshit insane and quite likely both.

Concerning wasteful spending, can anybody say bridge to nowhere

Mean Liar: Remember the fact that no charges were laid doesn't not mean she was guilty, it just means they weren't able to show it conclusively. The inability to prove a positive does not prove a negative.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:05 pm

That might be, but governors have to go through this shit all the time. You're basically making the claim that if anyone brings any suit, the subject is tarnished regardless of the results and that just doesn't stand on its own merit.

violence in the media · Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:32 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:
If the situation were reversed, a significant percentage of Americans should be seriously worried that every freedom they've fought for in the last 50 years is about to get undone.
Are you insane?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the republicans, in submissive servitude to the religious right, would not use a supermajority to push through anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation? Tort reform is another favorite of the conservative camp, because how dare people bring complaints against the captains of industry and actually have the financial punishment ocassionally affect the offender's bottom line? And those whiners at the ACLU, NOW, and NAACP? How dare they thwart the divine right of the white, christian male with their attempts to thwart discrimination, both conscious and unconscious, intentional or not.

Furthermore, you're trying to tell me that the historical tendency of the republican party to close ranks and vote as a block would just evaporate in the face of the ability to do anything they damn well pleased?

This is something I would hope to be wrong about.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:00 pm

mean_liar wrote:That might be, but governors have to go through this shit all the time. You're basically making the claim that if anyone brings any suit, the subject is tarnished regardless of the results and that just doesn't stand on its own merit.

I certainly am not making that claim. I'm making the claim that Palin conducted all her gubernatorial business through an illegal personal email account that got hacked and splashed over wiki links. It doesn't stand up in court, because those files could have been modified. But I absolutely don't have to take her lack of guilt seriously as a random citizen.

I mean, this is beyond how the investigation into OJ made enough procedural errors that he is legally not guilty. This is merely that she has been documented obstructing justice and simply has not been formally impeached yet. And now she's pulling a Nixon and resigning before the articles of impeachment hit her ass on the way out.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:17 pm

violence in the media wrote:Are you honestly trying to tell me that the republicans, in submissive servitude to the religious right, would not use a supermajority to push through anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation? Tort reform is another favorite of the conservative camp, because how dare people bring complaints against the captains of industry and actually have the financial punishment ocassionally affect the offender's bottom line? And those whiners at the ACLU, NOW, and NAACP? How dare they thwart the divine right of the white, christian male with their attempts to thwart discrimination, both conscious and unconscious, intentional or not.

Yes, because it's universally agreed upon that abortion is a Good Thing (insert abortion debate here), and gay marriage boils down to "gimme mah rites" (insert gay marriage debate here), and affirmative action is completely not racist in the least (insert Al Sharpton here).

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:43 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:...And now she's pulling a Nixon and resigning before the articles of impeachment hit her ass on the way out.

We'll see. Mostly I think you don't like her (plenty of reasons to choose from there) and are rationalizing the next shoe to drop.

We'll see.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:13 pm

mean_liar wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:...And now she's pulling a Nixon and resigning before the articles of impeachment hit her ass on the way out.
We'll see. Mostly I think you don't like her (plenty of reasons to choose from there) and are rationalizing the next shoe to drop.

We'll see.

While I admit that I don't like her, the fact is that aids in her own office said that she quit because she was being attacked legally:

Like it says here.

And I happen to remember that Sarah Palin had been protecting herself from investigation and attacks by running her government business through a secret private email account, that turned out to be not that secret.

So yeah. I think it's pretty open and shut. We've known she was breaking the rules since last September and her own office says she is quitting because the attacks against her are heating up. What possible alternate scenario do you want me to consider? I do hate her, and I think that her failure is funny as fuck. But I don't see that my bias is particularly clouding my ability to judge this scenario. Hackers released screenshots of her breaking the rules and she is quitting because fighting legal challenges about her rule breaking has become too hard.

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:37 pm

I agree with the facts (and the dislike) but I disagree with your conclusion - I don't really think that she had any impending Sword of Damocles hanging over her that was going to boot her from office so much as Alaska's lack of in-house counsel meant she was fighting these complaints mostly from her own pocket rather than state funds.

She stands to make a ton of money touring and what-not so I don't think that was a good reason to quit, but it is a reason.

Also, she's a quitter in general... she has a history of jumping ship for the next big gig without finishing terms.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:43 pm

I never cared all that much about why Palin left office, especially when the main reasons I heard until recently were 'stress from media/hecklers/etc'. What I care about is that apparently people (and she?) believe she is running for President next term, and is actually a good choice after this.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:30 am

Psychic Robot wrote:and gay marriage boils down to "gimme mah rites" (insert gay marriage debate here)

It does and if you believe otherwise you're the scum that means society can't have nice things.

Absentminded_Wizard · Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:51 am

virgileso wrote:I never cared all that much about why Palin left office, especially when the main reasons I heard until recently were 'stress from media/hecklers/etc'. What I care about is that apparently people (and she?) believe she is running for President next term, and is actually a good choice after this.

I agree. I don't think she could possibly run in 2012 after this. Maybe 2016 or 2020. Personally, I think it was all about being able to make more money with less stress. You figure she can make enough money off of speaking fees (and possibly book deals) to retire in luxury and then decide whether she wants to run for president or whether it's just too hard a job.

The interesting thing is that her plan may be unraveling.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:06 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:And now she's pulling a Nixon and resigning before the articles of impeachment hit her ass on the way out.

Nixon was a president, you need to compare apples to apples. Governors to Governors.

You need to compare her to Eliot Spitzer former Governor of NY.

Of course that would imply that there was an impeachment movement out there ... and there was not.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:38 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Psychic Robot wrote:and gay marriage boils down to "gimme mah rites" (insert gay marriage debate here)
It does and if you believe otherwise you're the scum that means society can't have nice things.

Since this thread is going off on all kinds of tangents...

I really wish that the state could create civil unions and get rid of marriages entirely. Civil Unions should be for legal reasons, marriages should be for mystical religious reasons. Conflating the two into one thing is unfortunate: you should have to go with a partner, sign some papers for the Justice of the Peace about your legal obligations to each other, and then if you want to have a bigass ceremony at a church or whatever go do that - just recognize that the church is not a governmental organization and has no legal bearing.

But gays don't want to be separate-but-equal and I doubt there's any significant number of people that want to decouple civil recognition from community ceremonies.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:39 pm

mean_liar wrote:I really wish that the state could create civil unions and get rid of marriages entirely. Civil Unions should be for legal reasons, marriages should be for mystical religious reasons. Conflating the two into one thing is unfortunate: you should have to go with a partner, sign some papers for the Justice of the Peace about your legal obligations to each other, and then if you want to have a bigass ceremony at a church or whatever go do that - just recognize that the church is not a governmental organization and has no legal bearing.

You know, mean liar, I really wish we could do that. I’ve often called the interrelationship between the civil and the “religious” elements of this thing called marriage a Gordian knot, and the only way to undo that knot is with a sword. There are still a couple of other minor issues with civil unions and social norms associated with “marriage” but those are minor compared to the economic and legal rights that are denied merely because of the gender of the two who are applying.