Muzman on 4/8/2011 at 03:28
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
So you value continued, obstinate, stubborn ignorance higher than you do pragmatic concession-making
Aside: I'm reminded of a discussion on This American Life with a guy who proclaimed himself a swinging voter back in the Bush/Kerry election, and he was weighing up the various policies of the candidates and their vote record etc. He without fail found reason to like everything Bush did, even if he disagreed with it. Where he disagreed with it or found no logic except populist expediency or dogma he'd always insert "We'll it takes more character. Shows he's confident in what he believes" etc etc.
I swear Ira Glass stops just short of grabbing the guy by the collar ad going "You're not a rebel or an independent thinker! You're a fuckin' Republican! Deal with it!!"
nbohr1more on 4/8/2011 at 04:16
Yeah this is wandering a bit but...
The original Tea Party actually seemed to point toward the noble goal of "actually accounting for War spending" and actually advised making the Federal Reserve a Government owned institution.
That must've scared a boat load of big players on both sides but mostly on the Right apparently who seem to have replaced them with some sick parody version.
I just posted this reply to a right-wing pundit over at Digg, feel free to plagiarize my words in any silly discourse:
Quote:
I hope you sleep well with that pile of Big-Business cash you Right-Wing astro-turfer. Just remember to wake up in time to see your traitor friends make their last China out-source deals and then surrender the USA to the "communism" that you claim Democrats are aiming for...
You make me sick.
Rug Burn Junky on 4/8/2011 at 04:23
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Oh no, that shit isn't "made up". Its so well documented that I don't even have to do my own research to back that up. Here's one link on each, I can pull up a dozen more (credible) sources for each if you insist on persisting in your denial.
You do, of course, realize that any and all of that is a far cry from:[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] [INDENT]"he has no character whatsoever and is a (devious) authoritarian who has no qualms about selling out the entire country financially to profit the ten-digit annual salary crowd."[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]
Do you?
Or do you honestly believe the stupid shit you say? You can't be this fucking retarded, can you?
Shug on 4/8/2011 at 06:27
President in "needs corporate support" shocker
CCCToad on 4/8/2011 at 06:59
I'm not sure how you could call sabotaging the solution to our financial problems (as you yourself describe) as anything less than selling the country down the river to benefit the rich.
Quote:
The original Tea Party actually seemed to point toward the noble goal of "actually accounting for War spending" and actually advised making the Federal Reserve a Government owned institution.
A pity they fell from that. To no small degree its the result of major efforts by the GOP to try to claim ownership of it and deflect that momentum away from any real reform. Thats the reason that you had Rove waging full out character war on genuine Tea Party candidates while stooges like Hannity and Beck flocked to publicize their own "tea party" favorites.
Seems like the only who is still about all that is Rep. Paul, who is advocating sensible solutions like a drawdown of our military expeditions.
Fafhrd on 4/8/2011 at 07:19
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I don't even have to do my own research to back that up.
(
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html) Maybe you should. The important points (because after you linked that Conyers screed as if it were fact I trust your reading comprehension even less than RBJ does):
* Initial cuts
do not include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or programs for the poor. It actually increases Pell grants - even in Boehner's bill.
* They must achieve at least $1.2 trillion in reduction or automatic cuts set in of that amount, spread equally between security (Defense and Homeland Security, mainly) and domestic spending set in.
Social Security, Medicaid, low-income assistance programs and Medicare benefits are exempt * any cuts to Medicare would be capped and
limited to the provider side.
It's even further from perfect than that hash of a health care reform bill, but it gives Obama some pretty strong options when the Republicans inevitably fail to produce any meaningful budget reform (admittedly, given his record, it seems unlikely that he'll actually exercise those options, but they're there).
CCCToad on 4/8/2011 at 08:51
Check your own reading comprehension when it was said that he was the one pushing for social security cuts. Its been a persistently re-occuring story in the past few months that the executive has been pushing Congress to slash social welfare programs. The same thing happened with the budget deal, although Obama didn't get his way.
Matthew on 4/8/2011 at 11:21
Could I ask where these stories have been 'persistently recurring'? As a non-US person we don't tend to get full details of discussions etc so I'd be interested to read about that.
Rug Burn Junky on 4/8/2011 at 12:48
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I'm not sure how you could call sabotaging the solution to our financial problems (as you yourself describe) as anything less than selling the country down the river to benefit the rich.
You've already demonstrated you have no grasp on the underlying issues, so when you make silly, idiotic, hyperbolic statements about Obama, they kinda fall flat.
Yes, Obama's stance on economic issues is far from ideal, but that's a far cry from the ignorant, ideologic fuckjobs that are the alternative: you know, like yourself.
CCCToad on 4/8/2011 at 13:14
So Bill Clinton was an ignorant, idealist fuckjob then.....good job.
Its understandable, your denial though. You've invested so much emotional energy in hating Bush, and in supporting Obama that it could be rather difficult to admit that Obama is nearly identical to Bush on economic issues. Hell, if I'd originally supported Obama instead of Hillary I probably wouldn't want to admit I was wrong about hm either.
