Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 16, 2011
2012 The Ideological Adolescence of the Republican Party
Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM
I'm not always crazy about Joe Klein, but he's onto something here:
...yet there is a jittery sense among Republican savants that Romney is a straw man, ready to be toppled, because the party has changed irrevocably. It has traded in country-club aristocracy for pitchfork populism. The Tea Partyers and talk-show hosts who define the new Republican Party believe in the opposite of primogeniture. They believe in the moral purity of political virginity. After Sarah Palin, amateurism has become a Tea Party hallmark. Herman Cain, the African-American business executive who was the Teasies' flavor of the month — before the debate — emphasizes his total absence of governmental experience, to roars of laughter and approval on the stump. In addition, the very structure of the nominating process has changed. It won't be a stately procession from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina to Florida this time. It will look more like the NCAA basketball tournament, only with two instead of four brackets: the Iowa bracket, which will feature the social-conservative and populist candidates like Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum — and perhaps Sarah Palin and Texas Governor Rick Perry; and the New Hampshire bracket, which will feature more-moderate candidates like Romney and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, focused on the economy.
By the time summer 2012 comes around, we'll have a better sense of what kind of Republican Party we're dealing with—the Reaganesque elitists or the isolationist teabagger crowd—but right now, nobody has any idea who the Republicans really are, or what they stand for.
2
Can anybody tell me what the Democrats stand for? And please base your opinions on behaviors of Democrats and the Democratic leadership instead of statements from the same.
I'll go first. What do the Democrats stand for? Getting Democrats elected.
I'll go first. What do the Democrats stand for? Getting Democrats elected.
4
@1: Beat me to it, except I would have run some blather about the bastard child of Calvin and Rand.
Erratum: the Reaganoids were not élitists: they were another set of populists (Real Murkins! Liberals are the élite!) working for the élite.
Erratum: the Reaganoids were not élitists: they were another set of populists (Real Murkins! Liberals are the élite!) working for the élite.
5
Of course we know: The GOP - regardless of which "bracket" comes out on top in the primaries - is the party that wants to starve the federal government into complete deregulation of all areas of influence except national defense, religion, and sexual self-determination.
In terms of which of the two factions will be in control of the party come next summer, a smart gambler would put their wagers on the elitists, because, as we've seen time-and-again, those on the Right with the money call the shots, even if that means they have to occasionally let those with the votes THINK they're calling the shots.
In terms of which of the two factions will be in control of the party come next summer, a smart gambler would put their wagers on the elitists, because, as we've seen time-and-again, those on the Right with the money call the shots, even if that means they have to occasionally let those with the votes THINK they're calling the shots.
6
What do they stand for well Health Care Reform for one, which passed under their watch, and yes it has to be improved but in this country we move at an incremental pace. Look at Social Security and how narrow it was when it first came around. Also we did pass the Lily Ledbetter Act.
The reason so many people here are mad with the Democratic Party is its a center, center-left party and so many people here are left and so are not happy they don't have a left party to represent them. As someone who is center-left I am quite happy with the Democratic Party.
The reason so many people here are mad with the Democratic Party is its a center, center-left party and so many people here are left and so are not happy they don't have a left party to represent them. As someone who is center-left I am quite happy with the Democratic Party.
8
We already know what they stand for:
The destruction of America's Middle Class, Social Security, Medicare and Government.
Basically, they're just al-Qeada USA.
The destruction of America's Middle Class, Social Security, Medicare and Government.
Basically, they're just al-Qeada USA.
9
As much as I distrust rich people, I'm rooting for the elite because, as evil as they are, at least they're not so fucking stupid. I'd rather have smart and evil running things than stupid and evil. Smart and evil is interested in self-preservation. Stupid and evil would be more than happy to nuke us all to hell and back.
11
@6, I'd believe that they honestly stood for Health Care Reform if they hadn't crafted it while holding hands with the insurance companies, or if it proposed the kind of freedom and efficiency we see in the French and Japanese models.
I'd also believe that their belief in universal healthcare came from a sincere place (rather than a purely political one) if they weren't so busy preventing sick and dying people from using medical marijuana while blowing up and burning alive innocent men, women, and children in pointless wars both legal and illegal.
I, for one, am not a leftist. I just can't stand dishonesty, incompetence, and aggressive violence. Those three things are in great and equal abundance in both parties.
I'd also believe that their belief in universal healthcare came from a sincere place (rather than a purely political one) if they weren't so busy preventing sick and dying people from using medical marijuana while blowing up and burning alive innocent men, women, and children in pointless wars both legal and illegal.
I, for one, am not a leftist. I just can't stand dishonesty, incompetence, and aggressive violence. Those three things are in great and equal abundance in both parties.
12
I do miss the Republicans from back before the Religious Right got so much power in the party. They were much more susceptible to reason back then, and generally acted like adults even when I disagreed with them.
The Democrats also have a very serious identity problem IMHO. At this point they're essentially a loose confederation of different causes without much in the way of a uniting philosophy. The leadership is after money and power, and they do things (mostly just talk) to pander to various interest groups to get enough support to get elected.
Functionally, because we have entrenched the two parties to such a great extent, we have a situation where the Democrats are a center-right party with no real agenda, the Republicans are a very far right party that is not entirely functional due to the cynical tactic of stirring up the fringe to win elections for over a decade and then doing nothing to advance the agenda of the fringe (aside from rhetoric), with the left pretty much going unrepresented in the halls of power.
The Democrats also have a very serious identity problem IMHO. At this point they're essentially a loose confederation of different causes without much in the way of a uniting philosophy. The leadership is after money and power, and they do things (mostly just talk) to pander to various interest groups to get enough support to get elected.
Functionally, because we have entrenched the two parties to such a great extent, we have a situation where the Democrats are a center-right party with no real agenda, the Republicans are a very far right party that is not entirely functional due to the cynical tactic of stirring up the fringe to win elections for over a decade and then doing nothing to advance the agenda of the fringe (aside from rhetoric), with the left pretty much going unrepresented in the halls of power.
14
I just finished the Erik Larson book about the lead-up to war in Nazi Germany, and the parallels with our country today were chilling.
15
Both parties stand for money and power for themselves. However, stats show the country does better when the democrats are in charge. When the Republicans are in charge, the wealthy tend to do well. When the Democrats are in charge, the wealthy tend to do well and so does everyone else. And the democrats are less prone toward destroying civil liberties. Also 9 has a point, the lesson of George W. Bush is that stupid is far more dangerous than we may have previously imagined and it is vital we keep stupid candidates out of the presidency. Smart Republicans in the past have done far less damage to the country.
16
He keeps saying the Republicans aren't used to surprises, and they've always known who was "next" (McCain in '08, Bush in '00, Dole in '96, etc.). Maybe I'm misremembering, but I seem to remember Dubya coming somewhat from out of left field (or as out of left field as the son of a previous president could be) and seeming like kind of a joke early in the campaign. Or maybe that was to the rest of the world, and the Rs knew he was next all along?
17
We really need to stop propagating the idiotic meme that the Tea Party is some crazy independent force. They have been and will always exactly what oil barons and Wall Street created them to be, advocates of their own financial and political marginalization.
19
@5
Except that for all the hysteria around Citizens United, that simply isn't true.
If it were, the Teabag crowd wouldn't have had the influence they did, and the Republicans would now run the Senate as well as the House. It isn't as though Harry Reid were a tough candidate to beat by any mainline Republican, but Sharron Angle got the nomination. This happened in at least 3 other races where the incumbent Dem would have lost to a sane moderate Republican, but won against the Teabagger nutjob.
Sorry to inject reality into your pretty little conspiracy theory.
Except that for all the hysteria around Citizens United, that simply isn't true.
If it were, the Teabag crowd wouldn't have had the influence they did, and the Republicans would now run the Senate as well as the House. It isn't as though Harry Reid were a tough candidate to beat by any mainline Republican, but Sharron Angle got the nomination. This happened in at least 3 other races where the incumbent Dem would have lost to a sane moderate Republican, but won against the Teabagger nutjob.
Sorry to inject reality into your pretty little conspiracy theory.
21
@20: What do adolescents commonly think they are? The three 'I's, right: invincible, invulnerable, and infertile.
The Republicans as a whole believe that it's perfectly all right to start wars because we'll always come out ahead. They also figure that we don't need any sissy industrial regulation to protect us. They also oppose expanding people's access to birth control and other reproductive/family planning services. Oops, did I just type all that out loud?
Seattleblues status:
[x] Told
[ ] Not told
The Republicans as a whole believe that it's perfectly all right to start wars because we'll always come out ahead. They also figure that we don't need any sissy industrial regulation to protect us. They also oppose expanding people's access to birth control and other reproductive/family planning services. Oops, did I just type all that out loud?
Seattleblues status:
[x] Told
[ ] Not told
22
@21
Simply untrue.
Republicans believe in the Constitutionally established system of Federalism. A minimum of specifically stated duties or priviledges are performed or enjoyed at the Federal level. And everything else devolves to the states and the citizens of them.
The idea is to place problem solving for local problems at the local level. My community can better respond to the education needs of kids than the Federal government, for instance. Applying uniform standards of education or policing or road maintanance to Brooklyn and Omak just doesn't make sense. Even helping alleviate hunger or homelessness is better done locally.
Democrats seem to believe that no problem shouldn't be made worse by involving the Federal government in at with at least 3 or 4 agencies having oversight on pencil manufacturing, or what color the lines in the highways must be.
It's this on which conservatives and liberals quibble. Abortion, slander about war crimes committed by the president and so on are just wedge issues to get the base out and voting.
Simply untrue.
Republicans believe in the Constitutionally established system of Federalism. A minimum of specifically stated duties or priviledges are performed or enjoyed at the Federal level. And everything else devolves to the states and the citizens of them.
The idea is to place problem solving for local problems at the local level. My community can better respond to the education needs of kids than the Federal government, for instance. Applying uniform standards of education or policing or road maintanance to Brooklyn and Omak just doesn't make sense. Even helping alleviate hunger or homelessness is better done locally.
Democrats seem to believe that no problem shouldn't be made worse by involving the Federal government in at with at least 3 or 4 agencies having oversight on pencil manufacturing, or what color the lines in the highways must be.
It's this on which conservatives and liberals quibble. Abortion, slander about war crimes committed by the president and so on are just wedge issues to get the base out and voting.
24
@22: Before I respond to the issues you raised, I would like to point out that you opened by stating that what I said was untrue...and then changing the subject and talking about other things entirely. That's REALLY QUITE CONVINCING, you know. The fact that you DELIBERATELY AVOIDED ADDRESSING MY POINTS certainly doesn't negatively impact the veracity of your rebuttal of them!
I don't insult your intelligence the way a lot of people here do. If you're going to insult my intelligence, please do so in a more subtle manner. Now, on to the fun stuff.
So you admit that social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which are all that the Republicans have been talking about of late (with the exception of a few bits about repealing health care reform) are really non-issues that the Republicans have been drumming up in order to get people to vote for them?
You are quite right that local agencies can, in many cases, be more efficient at providing essential humanitarian and community-building services than national-level government organizations. However, insisting that these local agencies be locally funded is a bad move because the poorest communities, which clearly need the most work, would necessarily receive the least funding. A better plan is to distribute Federal funds to state and local agencies, and this happens to be what is done in many situations now. And the Republicans in Congress are quite intent on cutting funding to such organizations in order to chip away at the deficit, while remaining steadfastly opposed to any serious deficit reduction through tax increases on the upper classes or budget cuts to nonessential military programs. You can't claim that Republicans are just trying to get things done more efficiently.
And what the fuck are you talking about, saying that standards in education shouldn't be applied nationwide? Shouldn't all students be taught on the same material?
More...
I don't insult your intelligence the way a lot of people here do. If you're going to insult my intelligence, please do so in a more subtle manner. Now, on to the fun stuff.
So you admit that social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which are all that the Republicans have been talking about of late (with the exception of a few bits about repealing health care reform) are really non-issues that the Republicans have been drumming up in order to get people to vote for them?
You are quite right that local agencies can, in many cases, be more efficient at providing essential humanitarian and community-building services than national-level government organizations. However, insisting that these local agencies be locally funded is a bad move because the poorest communities, which clearly need the most work, would necessarily receive the least funding. A better plan is to distribute Federal funds to state and local agencies, and this happens to be what is done in many situations now. And the Republicans in Congress are quite intent on cutting funding to such organizations in order to chip away at the deficit, while remaining steadfastly opposed to any serious deficit reduction through tax increases on the upper classes or budget cuts to nonessential military programs. You can't claim that Republicans are just trying to get things done more efficiently.
And what the fuck are you talking about, saying that standards in education shouldn't be applied nationwide? Shouldn't all students be taught on the same material?
25
Shorter SB:
"We must go back to the way things were in 1790, because The Constitution is written in stone and nothing should have ever changed from the point it was enacted going forward."
"We must go back to the way things were in 1790, because The Constitution is written in stone and nothing should have ever changed from the point it was enacted going forward."
26
@21
“The Republicans as a whole believe that it's perfectly all right to start wars because we'll always come out ahead.”
Really? Okay, let’s tally it up…
World War One - Woodrow Wilson – Democrat
(116,516 US Soldiers Killed)
World War Two – FDR – Democrat
(405,399 US Soldiers Killed)
Korean War - Harry S. Truman – Democrat
(36,574 US Soldiers Killed)
Vietnam War – JFK – Democrat
(58,209 US Soldiers Killed)
Persian Gulf War – Bush I – Republican
(832 US Soldiers Killed)
War in Afghanistan – Bush II – Republican
(1,622 US Soldiers Killed)
War in Iraq – Bush II – Republican
(4,462 US Soldiers Killed)
Democrats: 4 (6,616,698 US Soldiers Killed)
Republicans: 3 (6,916 US Soldiers Killed)
Democrats have the lead, and body count wise… it’s a HUGE lead.
“The Republicans as a whole believe that it's perfectly all right to start wars because we'll always come out ahead.”
Really? Okay, let’s tally it up…
World War One - Woodrow Wilson – Democrat
(116,516 US Soldiers Killed)
World War Two – FDR – Democrat
(405,399 US Soldiers Killed)
Korean War - Harry S. Truman – Democrat
(36,574 US Soldiers Killed)
Vietnam War – JFK – Democrat
(58,209 US Soldiers Killed)
Persian Gulf War – Bush I – Republican
(832 US Soldiers Killed)
War in Afghanistan – Bush II – Republican
(1,622 US Soldiers Killed)
War in Iraq – Bush II – Republican
(4,462 US Soldiers Killed)
Democrats: 4 (6,616,698 US Soldiers Killed)
Republicans: 3 (6,916 US Soldiers Killed)
Democrats have the lead, and body count wise… it’s a HUGE lead.
27
@25
No. We must abide by the Constitution unless and until it's legally altered.
If you're so morally certain that our form of government is wrong, get up a petition drive, or motivate your congressperson to start the process for Amendment. If you can get it passed, that's now the law of the land.
Until then, abide by the law or move where you feel you can.
No. We must abide by the Constitution unless and until it's legally altered.
If you're so morally certain that our form of government is wrong, get up a petition drive, or motivate your congressperson to start the process for Amendment. If you can get it passed, that's now the law of the land.
Until then, abide by the law or move where you feel you can.
28
What you wrote was untrue. So that's what I called it. A doctor doesn't say the patient has a fever, can't hold food down, and lacks energy. They say the patient has the flu. I don't say I have 4 wheels connected by a suspension and frame, surmounted by a cab and steel bed. I say I have a truck.
And what you point out aren't Republican traits, where they are true at all. They are Republicans saying that regulating industry out of existence isn't in our national interest. They are Republicans (and Democrats,) rightly or wrongly, feeling that national security was entailed in Iraq or Afganistan. They are Republicans saying that if a person chooses to have sex the costs of it are on them, not the nation.
Both sides must take a stance on abortion, or wars or education or tax structure. And both take that stance from within the ideological construct of their party. To say that an issue like abortion gins up the base, brings them out to vote and retain or regain power is politics. It doesn't necessarily invalidate the postition itself. It j
And what you point out aren't Republican traits, where they are true at all. They are Republicans saying that regulating industry out of existence isn't in our national interest. They are Republicans (and Democrats,) rightly or wrongly, feeling that national security was entailed in Iraq or Afganistan. They are Republicans saying that if a person chooses to have sex the costs of it are on them, not the nation.
Both sides must take a stance on abortion, or wars or education or tax structure. And both take that stance from within the ideological construct of their party. To say that an issue like abortion gins up the base, brings them out to vote and retain or regain power is politics. It doesn't necessarily invalidate the postition itself. It j
29
@26: One, you made a typo. The Democratic president death toll, as you wrote it, should be 616,698; you included an extraneous 6 million by mistake. Now, if you're going to add up all the major military actions of American history, you're doing yourself a disservice by excluding the Civil War, in which about American 625,000 soldiers died. Since Abraham Lincoln was President during the entire war, the Republican death toll is brought to 632,000 or so, somewhat more than the 617,000 dead of Democratic presidents. Nice cherry-picking, asshole.
@27: That's funny. You're fine with abiding by the Constitution, apparently, but think that we should just pretend the Elastic Clause doesn't exist. Keep fucking that chicken.
@28: A doctor can tell me that I have influenza, and I will accept his statement because he is an expert in the field of medicine. (A doctor also knows that vomiting isn't a usual symptom of influenza, but is more commonly caused by gastroenteritis, which is often called "stomach flu" but is unrelated.) YOU are not an expert in legal matters, and your previous statements on this blog make this painfully and abundantly clear. Therefore, I'm not going to just take your word for something without seeing a shred of evidence or reasoning in its support.
Now, just because some Democrats also take the aforementioned stances doesn't mean anything. You may recall that the original system of classification in which we were working was liberal/conservative, not Democrat/Republican. The Democrats who espouse questionably justifiable wars and oppose industrial regulation and access to birth control are, you will notice, conservative Democrats.
You two should really take some Vitamin C and drink some chicken soup. It seems like you're both coming down with cases of the common TOLD.
More...
@27: That's funny. You're fine with abiding by the Constitution, apparently, but think that we should just pretend the Elastic Clause doesn't exist. Keep fucking that chicken.
@28: A doctor can tell me that I have influenza, and I will accept his statement because he is an expert in the field of medicine. (A doctor also knows that vomiting isn't a usual symptom of influenza, but is more commonly caused by gastroenteritis, which is often called "stomach flu" but is unrelated.) YOU are not an expert in legal matters, and your previous statements on this blog make this painfully and abundantly clear. Therefore, I'm not going to just take your word for something without seeing a shred of evidence or reasoning in its support.
Now, just because some Democrats also take the aforementioned stances doesn't mean anything. You may recall that the original system of classification in which we were working was liberal/conservative, not Democrat/Republican. The Democrats who espouse questionably justifiable wars and oppose industrial regulation and access to birth control are, you will notice, conservative Democrats.
You two should really take some Vitamin C and drink some chicken soup. It seems like you're both coming down with cases of the common TOLD.
30
@26: That's a pretty shallow point. The body count portion ignores drastic changes in military technology that have led to much reduced casualty (and especially death) rates, and in general is reaching far enough back into history as to be meaningless w/r/t the present political environment. According to this historical analysis, we should also be able to say that the Deep South is a Democratic stronghold since Republicans were very hard pressed to win elections there until Nixon's Southern Strategy in the 1970s.
32
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm a city boy. I live in the suburbs of the Peoples Republic of Seattle.
33
@ 32, the fact that you choose to go after low hanging fruit like 31 rather than the points raised by 29 and 30 says a lot about your intellectual honesty.
34
Trolls don't have intellectual honesty.
Also, You Gotta Be Kidding Me is Seattleblues is Loveschild and so on
Also, You Gotta Be Kidding Me is Seattleblues is Loveschild and so on
35
@34: I troll recreationally. I have intellectual honesty, though. Also, those three are different people. Their writing styles are entirely dissimilar.
36
Republicans believe in the Constitutionally established system of crony capitalism. Capital is to be accorded maximum legal protection (limited liability and all constitutional rights of a natural person), while labor is not accorded any corresponding rights to associate.
Capital is provided protection at the federal level, while inidividual citizens' rights are left to the mercies of state governments that are subject to influence by capital that enjoys federal protections.
Thus, Republicans agitate for "malpractice reform" by trampling on states' traditional rights to regulate tort remedies. Does this cause any heartburn among "states rights conservatives"? Uh, no.
Paul, nobody has any idea who the Republicans really are, or what they stand for? Are you brain dead? Republicans stand for the following:
Zero taxation on capital (eliminate capital gains tax and taxation of corporate profits).
Maximize rights of capital (limited liability, corporations treated as natural persons for purposes of rights but not for purposes of obligations).
Minimize rights of labor (collective bargaining, etc.: the rights of association under the First Amendment obviously apply only to money and not to people who are trying to earn a living).
Federalize all issues that provide cover for the interests of capital (federal interference in states rights relating to same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, death with dignity (cf. Terry Schiavo farce), flag-burning, religious expression (prayer in school to be mandated so long as it is Christian, etc., etc., etc.)
Spend without regard to deficits so long as spending may benefit Republicans (agribusiness subsidies, oil industry subsidies, military spending, Medicare Part D for seniors).
Vehemently oppose any spending that benefits anyone that is not likely to vote Republican (i.e, anyone that is not straight, white and rich).
Kind of a shame that even the idiots at the Stranger couldn't compile this list over a couple of beers.
More...
Capital is provided protection at the federal level, while inidividual citizens' rights are left to the mercies of state governments that are subject to influence by capital that enjoys federal protections.
Thus, Republicans agitate for "malpractice reform" by trampling on states' traditional rights to regulate tort remedies. Does this cause any heartburn among "states rights conservatives"? Uh, no.
Paul, nobody has any idea who the Republicans really are, or what they stand for? Are you brain dead? Republicans stand for the following:
Zero taxation on capital (eliminate capital gains tax and taxation of corporate profits).
Maximize rights of capital (limited liability, corporations treated as natural persons for purposes of rights but not for purposes of obligations).
Minimize rights of labor (collective bargaining, etc.: the rights of association under the First Amendment obviously apply only to money and not to people who are trying to earn a living).
Federalize all issues that provide cover for the interests of capital (federal interference in states rights relating to same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, death with dignity (cf. Terry Schiavo farce), flag-burning, religious expression (prayer in school to be mandated so long as it is Christian, etc., etc., etc.)
Spend without regard to deficits so long as spending may benefit Republicans (agribusiness subsidies, oil industry subsidies, military spending, Medicare Part D for seniors).
Vehemently oppose any spending that benefits anyone that is not likely to vote Republican (i.e, anyone that is not straight, white and rich).
Kind of a shame that even the idiots at the Stranger couldn't compile this list over a couple of beers.
37
@29
Sorry about the typo. That was an honest mistake. Started with WWI because it is commonly considered to be the first "modern" US war. (Air power and all.) I also left Lincoln out because usually when I try to claim him as a Republican around here everyone screams like stuck pigs. However, I'm happy to take him (and the Cival war) and agree that the two parties are basically tied, which still disproves your position (that Republicans are more war like). Apparently both "sides" are, at "best", about equal on that footing... Asshole.
@34
I have never seen anything written by Loveschild that I could agree with on any level. As to Seattleblues, I agree with many of his conservative principals, but think he's frequently completely wrong in their application.
Sorry about the typo. That was an honest mistake. Started with WWI because it is commonly considered to be the first "modern" US war. (Air power and all.) I also left Lincoln out because usually when I try to claim him as a Republican around here everyone screams like stuck pigs. However, I'm happy to take him (and the Cival war) and agree that the two parties are basically tied, which still disproves your position (that Republicans are more war like). Apparently both "sides" are, at "best", about equal on that footing... Asshole.
@34
I have never seen anything written by Loveschild that I could agree with on any level. As to Seattleblues, I agree with many of his conservative principals, but think he's frequently completely wrong in their application.
38
venomlash, I get that you feed the troll to keep it going for your amusement, but you're expecting too much if you want any intellectual challenge from a collection of sockpuppet identities.
39
@38: Trollspotter, Seattleblues is trollbait. All I have to do is point out the great things that FDR did, like beat back the Nazis, pull the country out of the Great Depression, and establish a framework for combating future recessions, and he'll come running.
When I'm not trolling, and having an actual intellectual debate, Seattleblues isn't a challenge; he's practice. But I do wish you'd stop harping on about how all our idiots are the same idiot.
@37: Nope.
See, the death toll from wars isn't actually a good metric of the various parties' tendency to get embroiled in unjustified and foolhardy wars.
When I'm not trolling, and having an actual intellectual debate, Seattleblues isn't a challenge; he's practice. But I do wish you'd stop harping on about how all our idiots are the same idiot.
@37: Nope.
See, the death toll from wars isn't actually a good metric of the various parties' tendency to get embroiled in unjustified and foolhardy wars.
40
SB, you may live in marysville or puyallup, but i'm still going to picture you typing away furiously in an Omak library on free wifi supported by Seattle taxes!
41
@39
So... The various parties’ actual record of becoming embroiled in wars (foolhardy or otherwise) is not a good metric of their tendency to get embroiled in wars (foolhardy or otherwise)?
Whatever...
Fact is, regardless of what bleeding heart liberals like to believe about their party principles, both parties are just as bloody as each other.
But you just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
So... The various parties’ actual record of becoming embroiled in wars (foolhardy or otherwise) is not a good metric of their tendency to get embroiled in wars (foolhardy or otherwise)?
Whatever...
Fact is, regardless of what bleeding heart liberals like to believe about their party principles, both parties are just as bloody as each other.
But you just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
42
If the isolationist "America First" Conservatrolls here had had their way, we'd all be speaking German today; those of us whose great-grandparents hadn't been shipped off to camps, that is...
43
@41: So... The death toll of wars is a good metric of becoming embroiled in wars?
Keep on blathering, but you can't say that any Democrat in the modern era has ever started anything like the Second Gulf War.
Keep on blathering, but you can't say that any Democrat in the modern era has ever started anything like the Second Gulf War.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS