Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More rightard nonsense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    The Republicans need to work on growing up their image.

    But 2012-2016 will first and foremost be remembered as the time we went from "Yes We Can" to "No, They Really Can't. At All."

    The implication for progressive politics will be generational.


    Dree-ee-eeam... Dream dream dree-eeam, dree-ee-eeam...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pony Boy View Post
      Who mentioned the US military?
      The militarization of police has pretty much changed things.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by alkemical View Post
        The militarization of police has pretty much changed things.
        Definitely a disturbing trend. Hence the argument that the free American is entitled to whatever level of armament deemed necessary for police.

        I know these kids have wet dreams of the day police paramilitaries are calling down cruise missile strikes on NRA members. In reality though, that's never how you'd really go about breaking a resistance.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
          The Republicans need to work on growing up their image.

          But 2012-2016 will first and foremost be remembered as the time we went from "Yes We Can" to "No, They Really Can't. At All."

          The implication for progressive politics will be generational.
          I disagree, it will be remembered as the most obstructive, least productive, congress ever.

          Comment


          • #20
            Is it Bobo that keeps bringing up Orwell's 1984 when comparing this admin?


            Ohio passes restrictive voting bills, Dems vow to sue

            Ohio lawmakers passed two restrictive Republican voting bills Wednesday night, raising the prospect that casting a ballot this fall could be much more difficult, especially for minority voters.

            With Ohio remaining the key presidential swing state, the changes could also affect the 2016 election.

            The state Democratic Party said immediately that it would sue in federal court to block the laws.

            “In 2014, I never imagined that I would be in a statehouse trying to fight for the rights to vote,” said state Rep. Alicia Reece, a Democrat, on the floor.

            On party lines, the House voted 59-37 to approve a GOP bill that would cut six days from the state’s early voting period. More importantly, it would end the so-called “Golden Week,” when Ohioans can register and vote on the same day. Same-day registration is among the most effective ways for bringing new voters into the process, election experts say.The House also voted by 60-38 to approve a bill that would effectively end the state’s successful program of mailing absentee ballots to all registered voters. Under the bill, the secretary of state would need approval from lawmakers to mail absentee ballots, and individual counties could not do so at all. Nearly 1.3 million Ohioans voted absentee in 2012. The bill also would make it easier to reject absentee ballots for missing information.

            The Senate quickly approved minor changes to both bills and sent them to the desk of Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, who is expected to sign them.

            Republicans say it’s useful to create a clear interval between the registration and voting periods to cut down on the chnace for fraud, even though GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted has admitted fraud is extremely rare. And they say that different counties shouldn’t have different standards for mailing absentee ballots.

            During the House debate, Rep. Kathleen Clyde, a Democrat, read the names of Ohioans who she said were prevented from voting because of minor errors on their absentee ballots.

            “Explicitly or implicitly, this bill disenfranchises those among us who have historically been most disenfranchised,” said Rep. Dan Ramos, a Democrat, about the absentee ballot bill.

            Late last year, Republicans passed a bill that reduces the number of voting machines that counties must have on hand for elections, and that makes it easier to remove voters from the rolls.

            Taken together, all three bills could lead to much longer lines at the polls on Election Day. In 2004, Ohio was the poster-child for Election Day problems, with an estimated 175,000-plus people leaving before casting a ballot.


            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-rest...the-right-vote

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
              I disagree, it will be remembered as the most obstructive, least productive, congress ever.
              Yeah, if history tells us anything, it's that people remember Congresses ahead of Presidents.

              It's why you guys always talk about those "Tip O'Neill Deficits" from the 80's.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                Yeah, if history tells us anything, it's that people remember Congresses ahead of Presidents.

                It's why you guys always talk about those "Tip O'Neill Deficits" from the 80's.
                they do. and congress's approvals do impact the presidency as well. if you need proof just look at why you lost the last 2 elections.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                  they do. and congress's approvals do impact the presidency as well. if you need proof just look at why you lost the last 2 elections.
                  You do realize there are elections outside of Presidential elections.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                    You do realize there are elections outside of Presidential elections.
                    of course, but you don't realize that everytime that the GOP gets into bed with crazies like nugent people will notice. You honestly think that ten years from now people wont remember this congress? the one that set a record number of filibusters, that stated that they should be judged on how many bills they rejected? that shut down the government?you think people won't remember that idiot that called Obama a liar at the state of the union?you think they won't remember the tea baggers and their influence on the GOP?the congress that tried over 40 times to stop the healthcare act?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                      of course, but you don't realize that everytime that the GOP gets into bed with crazies like nugent people will notice. You honestly think that ten years from now people wont remember this congress? the one that set a record number of filibusters, that stated that they should be judged on how many bills they rejected? that shut down the government?you think people won't remember that idiot that called Obama a liar at the state of the union?you think they won't remember the tea baggers and their influence on the GOP?the congress that tried over 40 times to stop the healthcare act?
                      The Nugent line is tired. You kids spend plenty of campaign time around Che/Fidel/Chavez enthusiasts. I'd love to just go ahead and argue association every time you guys dangle one of those party hack kook media celebs in front of the public.

                      To the rest. Bitter Democrats will remember it your way (true or not)

                      As for the rest of the voting public, I don't think a Republican once calling him a liar after the whole "Lie of the Year" episode is going to carry much water.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                        The Nugent line is tired. You kids spend plenty of campaign time around Che/Fidel/Chavez enthusiasts. I'd love to just go ahead and argue association every time you guys dangle one of those party hack kook media celebs in front of the public.

                        To the rest. Bitter Democrats will remember it your way (true or not)

                        As for the rest of the voting public, I don't think a Republican once calling him a liar after the whole "Lie of the Year" episode is going to carry much water.
                        You can say you lost the argument. it's ok.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                          You can say you lost the argument. it's ok.
                          Uh huh.

                          http://www.rollcall.com/news/sean_pe...-208218-1.html

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            change that image GOP

                            The Arizona legislature sent a bill to the Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk Thursday that would carve a massive hole into state law allowing business owners to turn away gay and lesbian customers, employers to deny equal pay to women, or individuals to renege on contract obligations–as long as they claim to be doing so in the name of religion.

                            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arizona-p...discrimination

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              nailed it!

                              I'm embarrassed by Ted Nugent

                              Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."

                              (CNN) -- When did conservatives become prisoners to idiotic vulgarity? I ask that question as someone who self-defines as conservative and who is sick and tired of being embarrassed by Ted Nugent.

                              Last month the aged rocker called President Barack Obama a "subhuman mongrel" in an interview with Guns.com. That was bad enough, but what was just as shocking was the willingness of Texas GOP gubernatorial nominee Greg Abbott to keep him aboard his campaign.

                              Rick Perry and Ted Cruz also failed to rule out appearing with him. Only Rand Paul took to Twitter to demand an apology, which Nugent eventually gave. He downgraded Obama to a "liar," which is, at least, a more colorblind insult.

                              There is a view that Nugent simply "speaks his mind," and, yes, he has every constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. Maybe what he says appeals to some people, those for whom good manners are a bourgeois affectation and correct spelling the preserve of Harvard pointy-heads.

                              Nugent insists comments not racist, promises to stop 'calling people names'

                              Either way, what is disturbing is that some serious Republican politicians think that he matters and are happy to count him among their endorsements -- as though selling records and getting angry make him a spokesman for the masses. Animal from the Muppets also speaks his mind, but we've yet to see him headlining a rally for Chris Christie.

                              This isn't what conservatism is supposed to be about. Conservatism is the rejection of ideology in favor of common sense and anger in favor of cool rationalism.

                              Of course, there have always been intemperate voices on the American right -- from Joe McCarthy to the John Birch Society. (I'm not including Southern Democratic racists such as George C. Wallace because their place on the political compass is impossible to plot.) But the American right has an intellectual tradition that has all been forgotten by the media in recent years.

                              There were the Progressive Republicans (Irving Babbitt), the anti-communists (Whittaker Chambers), the libertarians (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman), the traditionalists (Russell Kirk), the neo-conservatives (Leo Strauss), and the sages of the National Review (James Burnham, L. Brent Bozell, Willmoore Kendall) -- the latter embodied by the urbane, cosmopolitan wit of William F. Buckley.

                              Most of these groups quietly linger around today, largely ignored in the noisy mess of 21st-century politics but still patiently taught at some colleges and think tanks. In modern-day Washington, you'll find all the Catholic Republican interns spending Sunday at St. Stephens on Pennsylvania Avenue and weekday nights at lectures by bishops on the nature of good and evil. Not at the assault weapon firing range.

                              Sometime in the 1970s, the intellectual right made common cause with populism, and historians such as Rick Perlstein tell us that this is when they surrendered their brains to cultural conservatism. But Ronald Reagan was neither inarticulate nor rude. He was happy, sunny, funny, and his speeches so dense with philosophy and history that they make Obama sound like a high school student.

                              Crucially, he had a faith in the intelligence of the average American, which meant he didn't resort to meanness or bad syntax to win their vote. Reagan would never call an opponent "subhuman."

                              So how do we explain the rudeness of contemporary politics? Nugent's followers might insist that his language reflects the desperate seriousness of his cause, that any conversation about fundamental issues such as guns or Obamacare is bound to cause a loss of temper. But in the 1960s the Republicans were debating urban riots, sex, drugs and Vietnam -- and yet the GOP sold itself as a party that could resolve these challenges with calm sensibleness. Nixon ran as an antidote to the chaos caused by the left, offering order over anarchy.

                              What has changed is that back then conservative politicians had faith in themselves and their own philosophy, that it would win out because it was right and middle-class Americans could see that.

                              Today's breed are all too often chasing a "base" that, they imagine, includes yahoos, survivalists and people who think the world is both flat and about to come to an end. This pursuit of the base ends with basically intelligent men deferring to those who are rightly socially unacceptable.

                              Cue John McCain in 2008 being told by supporters that Obama is an Arab, or Mitt Romney nearly paralyzed with socially awkwardness as he courted the Joe Six-Packs in 2012. And it ends in politicians failing to call Nugent out for being a Neanderthal.

                              As the midterms approach, conservative presidential aspirants face this challenge: Can they elevate rather than reduce the political debate? Rand Paul has made a good start, and it's probably because he is driven by philosophy and all the self-assurance that brings. For the rest, I'd like to see them defy a few stereotypes. Rather than being photographed shooting bears or doing pushups with Chuck Norris, let journalists catch them reading a book. Russell Kirk is a good place to start.

                              http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X